Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Intensive Livestock Buildings (Rating)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received to the latest convenient date, from the National Farmers Union on the rating of broiler and other intensive livestock houses.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The union has made representations on several occasions about the rating of certain kinds of buildings—mainly but not exclusively those used for intensive livestock production—most recently on 30th January when it met the Minister for Planning and Land together with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.

Mr. Brewis: Why has there been such a long delay in restoring the position on derating to what it was before the 1964 legal decisions? When will the Government act on this matter?

Mr. Mackie: It is not a case of restoring the position. The situation in agriculture has changed considerably and the intensive housing of animals is fairly recent. This is the problem, that it does not tie up with the Act. This is a very difficult subject. There is a case going to the the House of Lords. The whole question of local authority rating is currently being discussed.

Agricultural Produce (Guarantees)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is

the policy of the Government regarding the future of guarantees for agricultural produce when the home industry reaches a level of self-sufficiency in each particular commodity, in the light of the recent decision relating to eggs.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): The arrangements for each commodity are framed to meet its particular needs and circumstances, and the degree of self-sufficiency is only one of the factors which need to be taken into account. The plans which I have announced for eggs, therefore, create no precedent for other commodities.

Mr. Jopling: But does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if the present system of support is to continue, the industry cannot expand with half-baked Answers like that? Does he realise that the industry has been dropped in at the deep end by his decision about eggs and that it does not know what is coming next if self-sufficiency is to be reached? We must have a straighter answer than that.

Mr. Hughes: That question shows that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the position. He must realise that the action taken on egg marketing is based on the report of the Reorganisation Commission, which was concerned exclusively with the problem of eggs. The question is, therefore, directly related to eggs.

Mr. Godber: But would the right hon. Gentleman explain, acknowledging that his decision was based on that Commission's Report, how he felt free to withdraw the guarantee for eggs when his party firmly committed itself at the last General Election to maintain the present system of agricultural support? Surely this is a break from that pledge.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government have adhered to all the pledges which they made in the Election. Eggs in this context are sui generis. He has said that, generally, he agrees with the Government's action.

Foxes (Control)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he proposes to discontinue measures for the


control of foxes in urban and semi-urban areas.

Mr. John Mackie: The responsibility for fox control rests with the owners of land. In some suburban areas officers of my Department have participated directly in control operations but we believe that the small numbers of staff available will be better employed in providing local authorities with advice and training.

Mr. Onslow: How much will this save, and what consideration has the Minister given to the probability that if control in future takes the form of the setting of snares by private individuals many domestic dogs and cats will suffer?

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply, he would have heard me say that we thought that our people would be better employed giving advice and training, and that training would certainly not include setting snares.

Farm Animal Welfare

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee have informed him that they have an interest in intensive animal husbandry.

Mr. John Mackie: None, Sir. The agricultural interests of the four farmer members were known to us before they were appointed.

Mr. Tinn: I thank my bon. Friend for that reply.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members of the staff of his Department are members of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Service.

Mr. John Mackie: There is no farm animal welfare advisory service as such but our 359 veterinary officers in the field are responsible for giving advice on welfare matters to farmers and others concerned with livestock.

Mr. Tinn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply.

Poultry (Slaughter)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider taking action to register

and license poultry packing stations so that they come under the same regulations as other slaughter houses.

Mr. John Mackie: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 14th October last to the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell).—[Vol. 770, c. 40.]

Mr. Murray: Would my hon. Friend not agree that poultry are particularly prone to various diseases, and that they can suffer from tumours which can be cut out, leaving no sign of the disease? Would he think about this whole matter?

Mr. Mackie: We are giving the matter consideration.

Intensive Units (Stockman's Responsibility)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the large numbers of animals and birds in intensive units under the care of one man, if he will take steps to impose a statutory limit on the number of creatures that are the responsibility of one stockman.

Mr. John Mackie: This suggestion has already been made to the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. It is considering it, and we would not wish to anticipate its advice.

Mr. Murray: When he receives the advice, would my hon. Friend remember that one person can look after tens of thousands of chickens in some of these units and thousands of veal-producing calves? Would he consider this urgently when it comes before him?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, Sir. The Advisory Committee is alive to the fact that intensive farming today requires much more inspection than the old methods, but, nevertheless, no one intending to go in for intensive farming would neglect inspecting his animals. We are today looking for more productivity, which these methods give, and we do not want to discourage them.

Mr. Ellis: But does my hon. Friend accept that these units are now turning out thousands of carcases, whether chicken or veal, and that, compared with the regulations for slaughter houses, it is now high time—this is not a matter of someone wringing half a dozen


chickens' necks as they did in the old days, but of thousands of birds—that we tightened up the regulations for these intensive units?

Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend should have directed that supplementary question to Question No. 6, because it has nothing to do with Question No. 7.

Fishing Industry (Reorganisation)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the fishing industry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 776, c. 462–3.]

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Boston Group not to go into the merger proposed by the I.R.C. caused considerable disappointment? Can he give a time scale as to when we can hope that he will tell us when the merger for the two other big firms will be completed, and can he indicate that the fact that the Boston Group has not entered into the merger will not deter the smaller private firms from entering into it?

Mr. Hoy: I am in the closest touch with the negotiations, but it would be premature to comment on one feature of them. The I.R.C. is continuing the discussions with the fishing industry. They are in very capable hands. But the negotiations are a very delicate matter. As soon as we have any information, we shall convey it to the House.

Fish Supplies (Prices)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the effects of the 10 per cent. duty on frozen fish fillets from European Free Trade Association countries.

Mr. Hoy: It is difficult to isolate the factors affecting fish supplies and prices. This is particularly so at this time of year when weather conditions can affect supplies. Nevertheless, I am confident

that the effects are beneficial to our fishing industry.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that leaders in the industry said last week how successful the Government's attempts to resuscitate industry were proving, but does he realise that the real problem of the levy will apply only in the summer when there is dumping on our market? Even though people have congratulated the Government on the success of this measure, would my hon. Friend ensure that there is no premature withdrawal of the levy?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful for what has been said by my hon. Friend and by those in the industry. That is why I said that we should exercise a little care about the effect of the duty. It will be better felt when fish are more plentiful.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the hon. Gentleman say by how much prices have fallen and by how much he expects they will fall during the summer?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot anticipate how prices will move. At present, retail fish prices are about the same as they were this time last year.

Farm Workers

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now proposes to take to reduce the drift of workers from the land.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I recognise that there is a considerable outflow of labour in some areas but the overall position in the country as a whole is not such as to require special action. I shall continue to watch the situation.

Mr. Loveys: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the steady decline in the number of farm workers is acceptable at present owing to increased mechanisation and modern methods, but would he not agree that there is a need in the long term to encourage younger men into the industry to avoid an imbalance in the age structure?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that this matter must be watched constantly. The Agricultural Wages Board is currently considering a proposed wage structure for the industry, which is a very important factor.

Mr. Godber: The whole House would probably agree that a wage structure might be valuable, but does not the Minister realise that the Government's action in referring the last agricultural wages increase to the Prices and Incomes Board had a very serious effect on confidence among farm workers and their employers? If his proposals for expanding agricultural production are real, surely he realises that we must have an adequate labour force on the farms.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows why the reference was made to the board. However, no farm worker lost a penny in wages because of the reference.

Mr. Manuel: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if we are to stop the drift of workers from the land farming units must be much larger and must give greater opportunities for promotion? Certainly wages must be much higher and the houses occupied by many farm workers must be improved.

Mr. Hughes: I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that the Government have promoted the amalgamation scheme with a view to bringing about larger and more economic and more viable units.

Beef Cow Subsidy (Claim Form)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will issue a revised and clarified claim form for beef cow subsidy.

Mr. Hoy: Claim forms for beef cow subsidy incorporating explanatory notes are issued each year in December. If the hon. Member has any suggestions for improving on the form used in December, 1968, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider them.

Mr. Loveys: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that this form is causing considerable extra work to his divisional offices owing to its ambiguity in relation to the qualifying acreage requirement? Much unnecessary correspondence could be avoided if the forms were clearer on this point.

Mr. Hoy: I do not know what ambiguity the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but certainly there is no ambiguity

about acreage, which is laid down specifically—one to two-and-a-half acres.

British Standard Time

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the loss of productivity per agricultural worker in the months of November, December and January as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time in the light of representations he has received from the farming community.

Mr. John Mackie: None, Sir. So far my right hon. Friend has received only one representation referring specifically to loss of productivity: this was in relation to horticulture.

Mr. Brewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position in Scotland is different? My local branch of the N.F.U. reckons that there has been a 12 per cent. increase in labour costs owing to the dark mornings during these months. Will allowance be made for this in the Price Review?

Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, all increases in costs are taken into account in the Price Review.

Mr. Farr: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not good enough to say that he has received only one representation on this matter. Does he not realise that a great deal of discomfort and inconvenience has been caused to the farming industry throughout the country by British Standard Time?

Mr. Mackie: I answered the Question which the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked—namely, what representations my right hon. Friend had received? I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman should object to my answering the Question correctly.

Later—

Mr. Farr: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister, in referring to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), to say that he was asked only what representations he had received when, in fact, the Question asked what estimate he had made of the loss of productivity per agricultural worker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman has cost us one Question. He might have raised the matter at the end of Questions.

Inshore Fishing Vessels (Foreign Construction)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for building grants for inshore fishing vessels for building in foreign yards have been approved; and what is the total sum involved.

Mr. Hoy: I am informed that 23 applications for grant for inshore and herring fishing vessels to be built in foreign yards have been approved by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board since the commencement of the present Fishing Vessels Grants Scheme in 1967. Grant for these vessels is estimated to total £456,000.

Mr. Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money is being well spent? In other words, are we getting value for money from this sort of operation? Would it not be better to concentrate the building of these vessels in British yards?

Mr. Hoy: Ninety per cent. of the vessels are built in British yards. Tenders are called for from three yards as well as from a foreign yard before approval is given. If we think, or the Minister of Technology thinks, that a subsidy is attached to a vessel being built in a foreign yard, he takes steps to cut the grant by nearly half.

Egg Producers

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes for assistance to egg producers in remote areas of the country resultant on the winding up of the Egg Marketing Board: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has decided that Northern Ireland egg producers are to be subsidised; and to what extent he has considered the effect of such a subsidy on the United Kingdom market as a whole.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The transitional arrangements for the next five years are designed to enable the industry to adapt to the new situation. No special assistance is envisaged for producers on the mainland of Great Britain. We have accepted the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission that there should be special aid for sea transport for producers in Northern Ireland and the Orkneys.

Mr. Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify his statement that it is not necessary to have a subsidy on the mainland? Can he say categorically that the scheme envisaged will not put out of business many small egg producers in the remoter parts of the country?

Mr. Hughes: We are confident that the scheme will work out well and that producers on the mainland, with a free market, will be able to get a reasonable return for their product. This was the basic reason why the Egg Reorganisation Commission made its recommendations, most of which we have accepted.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North-East is one of the main egg-producing areas in Scotland, and that his ruling that the extra grant is not available there is very much against the wishes and views of the Scottish National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Hughes: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman must represent some producers who have apprehensions on the matter. As he knows, producers have been selling direct to retailers throughout the country, even in the more peripheral areas. The House must remember that the Commission based its recommendation on the very important part played by egg production in the agricultural economies of Ulster and the Orkneys.

Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the producers concerned are generally the small producers? There is a significant way in which he could help them. There is a potential customer who wants good quality free-range eggs. If my right hon. Friend took steps to ensure that people were not allowed to describe their products as free-range when they are not there would be an enormous demand from customers who would pay a little extra for a quality egg.

Mr. Hughes: The small producer, as all of us are aware, does sell a good quality free-range egg.

Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Petroleum Storage Licences (Fees)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated total cost to the farming community of the increase in the fees for petroleum storage licences.

Mr. John Mackie: About £27,000 annually.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it regrettable to heap this unnecessary and bureaucratic burden on the shoulders of an industry which the Government represented that they wished to encourage?

Mr. Mackie: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that the licensing of the storage of petrol has been administered by the local authorities for many years, and the last increase was in 1928. Even he would agree that there has been a rise in costs, and the increased fee just covers the increased cost of administration. There is no reason to suggest that a farmer's application costs less to administer. Indeed, it might cost more to administer than one in a town.

Common Market (Agricultural Policy)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it remains the Government's intention to accept the agricultural policy of the Common Market, in connection with Great Britain's application to join; and if he wil make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I have nothing to add to what the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in his speech to the Council of Western European Union on 4th July, 1967.

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister's pledge at Bristol in March, 1966, before the last General

Election, that he would not crawl into the Common Market but would go in with his head held high and would not accept levies? He said just over a year later in the House that the levy system in the Common Market was not negotiable. How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those two irreconcilable statements? What is the Government's policy on levies?

Mr. Hughes: I could explain the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this, but the hon. Gentleman should address his questions to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gardner: What evidence is there that the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C. is proving all that satisfactory either to farmers or to consumers in Europe? If there is none, will not my right hon. Friend advise his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to consider this seriously before proceeding with the application?

Mr. Hughes: The Cabinet has, of course, considered this matter very carefully. As Minister of Food, I am conscious of the effect that a change to the E.E.C. system would have on, for example, food prices.

Food Imports (Policy)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it remains the Government's policy that food should continue to be bought in the cheapest markets; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It never has been the Government's policy that our food imports should be bought in the cheapest market regardless of other considerations.

Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Prime Minister saying in that same speech at Bristol that we should continue to buy our food on the cheapest markets in the world? Does that mean that the Common Market levies are not negotiable?

Mr. Hughes: Of course the Government's basic objective is to keep down the United Kingdom food import bill as much as is practicable and desirable, bearing in mind particularly the interests


of United Kingdom producers and consumers and such international obligations as it is in our interests to contract.

Mr. Rankin: Before buying in the cheapest market, will my right hon. Friend make sure how the cheapness is achieved?

Mr. Hughes: This is constantly in our minds. As my hon. Friend and the House know, there are anti-dumping procedures which can be taken.

Mr. Godber: But the Minister will surely recognise that his answers to the last two questions have left the House completely confused about his attitude, while the attitude of this side of the House is abundantly clear. Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out his attitude on the matter so that we and the farmers may know it?

Mr. Hughes: I have spelt out my views very carefully, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If I spelt them out again now, it would take a very long time. To summarise my view, whilst we are outside the Community we should want to think very carefully before making the kind of fundamental changes the right hon. Gentleman now advocates. The present support system in agriculture has served the farmers of this country and the economy very well, and it remains suited to our present requirements. There are many snags in the Opposition's proposals, and I have dealt with them in speeches from time to time.

Cereal Farming

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the level of return obtained by the country's cereal farmers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: At the last Review we made increases in the guaranteed prices for wheat, barley and oats. The current situation and prospects are being considered at this Review, the outcome of which clearly I cannot anticipate now.

Mr. Smith: But has not the degree of profitability shown a downward trend in recent years? Is it not now time for the Government to take positive action in the Price Review to reverse this trend if they want more acreage to be devoted to cereals?

Mr. Mackie: That is what I said. It is being considered in the Price Review.

Costs

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the costs which are taken into account at the Annual Price Review have risen in the 1968–69 agricultural year.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Details of cost changes will be published in the White Paper following the completion of the 1969 Annual Farm Price Review.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman has these figures available. Would it not be to the advantage of the House and the whole country, particularly the farming industry, to have these costs published now? They are not in dispute. Will not he tell us what the rise in cost is? Is it £40 million, as some people say?

Mr. Hughes: The final figures for aggregate cost changes are agreed with the farmers unions through the Review negotiations. I cannot give the details, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Maclennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory that this matter should be beyond debate until the Price Review is announced, when the House is told that this has taken on the nature of an agreement and that we are not in a position to influence the discussions one way or the other?

Mr. Hughes: This is a convention that has obtained since the Annual Price Review was established.

Beef and Lamb Production (Hill Farming Areas)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much production of beef and lamb has increased from hill farming areas in 1968–69 compared with 1967–68.

Mr. Hoy: It is not possible to attribute home-produced beef and lamb precisely to particular areas. As the hon. Member knows, the major importance of hill farming areas is as a source of store animals for breeding and fattening elsewhere.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he wishes to achieve the expansion mentioned by his right hon. Friend it is from the hill areas that it must come? Will he give a general assurance to the House that in the Price Review these areas will be treated more generously in the various subsidies, deficiency payments and production grants in order to reach the figure of expansion that he has been talking about?

Mr. Hoy: I would not demur from the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and I would not care to comment on the second part.

Dairy Produce

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to secure increased consumption of home-produced milk products in order to reduce the share of the market taken by imported milk products which are subsidised.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is for the industry to promote consumption of United Kingdom dairy produce.

Mr. Mills: Surely the whole trend at the moment is a national disgrace bearing in mind our economic problems? Will not the Minister make a decision and tell the House what he is to do about heavily subsidised imports to this country?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member asked me what steps I was taking
to secure increased consumption of home-produced milk products".
I told him that it was for the industry to promote this consumption. This it is doing very effectively through advertisement and publicity.

Mr. Godber: Is not the right hon. Gentleman dodging one part of the Question which refers specifically to reducing
the share of the market taken by imported milk products ".
Is he not aware of heavy dumping of cheese and other milk products on our markets for the last 12 months? Will he address himself to that part of the Question, which my hon. Friend quite fairly asked?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that butter imports are governed

by quotas and there is protection. Hon. Members must know that cheese imports are being discussed by the President of the Board of Trade in response to an anti-dumping application made by the Milk Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union.

Food Imports

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the fact that the annual cost of food imports has increased by more than £200 million since 1960, he will now take further steps to encourage import substitution.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We have already taken such steps through the introduction of the selective expansion programme after we took office and the extension of it which I announced in November last year. During this period the increase of home food production has, in fact, met a major part of the additional demand for those products which we can grow ourselves.

Mr. Mills: Does the Minister realise that I am not satisfied with this trend? Will he tell us of any other country which is importing so much food? Are we not like a man with a good garden with plenty of time and no money who goes to the end of the road and buys his food?

Mr. Hughes: The House has become accustomed to the hon. Member's tirades on this question. The figures for 1967 and 1968 show that the overall increase since 1960 in food which can be grown here was obtained from home production. This is a very good record indeed.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose——

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two days ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member may complain if he is not called to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two days ago the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) asked for more help for agriculture in underdeveloped countries? Is the hon. Member now complaining that their exports come here?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that consistently for months past I have


been asking him to publish statistics showing the extent of import substitution? Will he now undertake to include in his White Paper following the Price Review full particulars of import substitution achieved, with the relevant statistical support ad valorem in money?

Mr. Hughes: It has been made abundantly clear that over the last few years agriculture has made a very important import substitution contribution which is vital to the economy. I shall consider the hon. Member's request.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in food imports in 1968; what percentage of such increase was from Commonwealth, European Free Trade Association, European Economic Community and Council for Mutual Economic Assistance countries, and from the United States of America, respectively; and what decrease he estimates will be made in 1969 in accordance with the Government's policy of saving imports by means of increased home production.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As my reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS to the last part of the Question, I cannot give an estimate of food imports for 1969.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the disturbing increase in food imports, which conflicts with the Government's stated policy, is the Minister satisfied that he has a proper long-term strategy for British agriculture and, in particular, that confidence is being given British farmers that their market will not be allowed to collapse for want of a proper phasing of imports?

Mr. Hughes: In reply to a previous question I referred to the import-saving contribution which agriculture has made. The hon. Gentleman must get this in the right perspective. Imports of temperate-type foods last year increased by £50 million, but all of this was due to higher prices. The additional demand for temperate-type food was met by home production. This is precisely what we are trying to do.

Following are the figures:

The increase in the value of food * imports between 1967 and 1968 was £103 million. The change in the value of food imports from each of the sources requested expressed as a percentage of the total increase of £103 million, is as follows:



Per cent.


Commonwealth
+ 35


European Free Trade Area
+ 14


European Economic Community
+ 19


Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
+ 2


United States of America
−6


* Taken as Section O of the Overseas Trade Accounts (food and live animals).

Cheese Imports

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now intends to take to prevent imports of imitation English cheeses, in view of the large stocks of English-produced cheeses now available.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the dilution of the pool price of milk owing to the time taken to prevent the dumping of cheese upon the British market.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 22nd January that a full investigation is being made into applications lodged in December for duties on dumped or subsidised cheese imports. Negotiations for a voluntary limitation on cheddar deliveries from overseas are still in progress. I cannot say what the pool price would have been if the cheese market had not been affected by any given level of dumping or subsidisation, but the price of home-produced cheddar has remained stable.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that British producers are very anxious that anti-dumping duties should be introduced? Does he not think that there is a prima facie case for this? Will he therefore urge his right hon. Friend to get a move on so that negotiations can be opened with the Governments concerned in order to protect our products from unfair competition?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has


found a prima facie case of dumping. He is now considering the matter in greater detail and will—I think, in a matter of two or three weeks—be able to come to a final conclusion.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is it not a little late in the day when last year cheese imports increased by 67 per cent.? Surely the Minister must appreciate the state of the British economy and see that it is absolutely criminal to allow this situation to persist?

Mr. Hughes: That is precisely why the steps to which I have referred have been taken. While I do not want stocks to be too high, the hon. Member should know that the total cheese stocks were lower at the end of December than at any time since last April.

Mink Population

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in the feral mink population of England and Wales he expects to result from the discontinuance of measures of mink control in urban and semi-urban areas at present carried out by his department.

Mr. John Mackie: Feral mink have very rarely been found in urban or semi-urban areas and I do not expect them to become established in such places.

Mr. Onslow: Since this will encourage a flourishing feral mink breeding species, what assessment has the hon. Gentleman formed of the consequent loss to fishing and farming?

Mr. Mackie: I did not quite follow the hon. Member's supplementary question when he said "since this will encourage mink to become flourishing ". I did not agree it would.

Northumberland Committee's Report

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will row give the date when he expects to receive the report of the Northumberland Committee's investigation into foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what

date he now expects to receive and take action on the preliminary recommendations of the Northumberland Committee on foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 776, c. 475.]

Mr. Jopling: When the Minister gets the Report, will he ask the Committee to put in a survey of the hardship caused to farmers by his failure to honour the pound-for-pound pledge for the compensation fund?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member must put down another Question on that.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that he is complicating matters for himself and antagonising the farming community by his unwillingness to answer the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend? Could he not give a holding answer that he is looking at this vexed problem and will view it with the sympathy shown by the Minister last year when the scourge was at its agonising height?

Mr. Hughes: I am surprised that the hon. Member should ask that question because I gave him a detailed Written Answer to a Question on this subject. In the meantime I have had discussions with the President of the National Farmers' Union and have asked for further information which he has agreed to let me have.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend allay the growing concern of British housewives about the possible cost of the weekend joint by arranging for the Northumberland Committee's Report to be presented to the House as soon as he receives it so that there may be a debate in which the consumers' interest can be put to counter some of the vested interests put in this House by the farmers' lobby?

Mr. Hughes: I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay in printing the document when I have received it.

Mr. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously at this matter again? Does he recall that when it was first discussed I put the point to him that


as the Government had committed themselves morally to a contribution of a quarter of a million pounds surely they should now pay it? The opportunity is there for them to do so and to help farmers who have suffered.

Mr. Hughes: There are many aspects to this question which are impossible to go into at Question-time. When I come to a final conclusion I will tell the House.

Mr. Hooson: On the supplementary question which asked about compensation, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to answer Question No. 65, which deals with this point?

Deficiency Payments

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to stabilise or reduce deficiency payments, in view of the policy of containing Government expenditure.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The cost of agricultural support to public funds is taken into account at Annual Reviews. The hon. Member cannot expect me to anticipate the outcome of this year's Review.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the Minister aware that it is the Government's policy, as demonstrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there shall be the tightest possible control over public expenditure? Therefore, does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that if British agriculture's domestic output is to be expanded along the lines he has indicated, to avoid a disproportionate charge on public funds some action must be taken in respect of control of imports, through either minimum import prices or levies.

Mr. Hughes: I agree that a careful balance must be maintained between public expenditure and what is needed for the health of the agricultural industry and the economy generally. The Opposition are wrong to think that the adoption of a system of import levies and target prices would at once stabilise the market, reduce the cost to the Exchequer, and provide agriculture with the resources needed for expansion. For example, support buying, to which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is committed, would be very expensive indeed. These are matters which we must discuss very carefully in the public debate which is now going on.

Support

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study he is undertaking of the different methods of agricultural support; and when he will publish his conclusions.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Methods of agricultural support are kept constantly under review. If I think an announcement is appropriate, I will make one.

Mr. Farr: Can the Minister honestly mean what he says? Is he not aware that this is a matter of great and critical importance at the moment, as the imposition of a levy system is a certain and complete cure for dumping? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Hughes: Hon. Members opposite who are now supporting a levy system should study all the implications of a levy system. They should take time to examine it with the branches of the National Farmers Union so that they can have a debate in their own constituencies.

Sir D. Renton: How can the selective expansion programme be achieved if imports continue at their present scale? What is the Minister's policy for reducing imports?

Mr. Hughes: I have already indicated clearly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that the import-saving role of agriculture is making a very real contribution to the economy. I have quoted figures. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do me the courtesy to read my reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow?

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the prosperity of British agriculture started with the 1947 Act? In the consideration which he is undertaking, will he be very careful about changing the basic methods of support that have brought prosperity to British agriculture?

Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. This is precisely what we are doing.

Farm Amalgamations

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in


the amalgamation of farms into larger units.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is not possible to give the total number of amalgamations. The decline in the number of units in the agricultural census and the annual fall in the number of full-time farm businesses averaged 3,000–4,000 in England and Wales between 1965 and 1967. The Government's amalgamation scheme has so far attracted some 1,200 applications.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Is the Minister satisfied with that progress? Should not he have a look at two factors, in particular—first, the 40-year restrictive covenant which has been put on by Schedule 3 to the Agriculture Act; and, secondly, the effect of fragmentation which is caused by Estate Duty and capital levies?

Mr. Hughes: I think that the scheme, which is generally welcomed by the House and by the country, needs to be looked at over the next two or three years. I am anxious to see exactly how it is working out. It has been in operation for only 16 months. The response is not unsatisfactory. Structure schemes are entirely new to Britain and it is only natural that farmers will want to take some time to consider the pros and cons before they reach what is, after all, a major decision for them.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Minister bear in mind that output per acre is not necessarily coincidental with profitability per acre? Over-stressing profitability can result in larger units from which the output per acre is not as high as it was from the smaller units. This can be against the national interest.

Mr. Hughes: This is a factor which must be taken into account. It is a voluntary scheme and it is up to farmers themselves to decide whether they want to take advantage of it.

Lowland Sheep

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what part he estimates lowland sheep will play in providing increased supplies of home-produced meat.

Mr. Hoy: Nearly half of the breeding ewes in the United Kingdom are kept in

the lowlands and a major part of our fat sheep and lambs are at present finished there. Moreover, sheep have a valuable place in lowland farming systems as a break between cereal crops. So the lowlands have an important part to play in mutton and Iamb production. But any significant expansion would be at the expense of the increase we hope to see in other livestock and crops, so we are looking mainly to the hills and uplands to offset the recent decline in the national flock.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the lowland flocks are rapidly diminishing? if the targets of increased production are to be achieved, is it not important for lowland flocks to make their contribution to the fertility of farms?

Mr. Hoy: We gave considerable price support at the last Review. We realise the importance of this. As I said in reply to an earlier question, with which the hon. Gentleman did not disagree, we look to the hills and uplands for increases in the flock.

Mr. Maclennan: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, but will he acknowledge that the profitability of the store-producing hills and uplands depends upon the extent to which the low grounds are grazing sheep?
Mr. Hoy: I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes. We must take both aspects into consideration when planning our policy.

Mr. Hoy: I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes. We must take both aspects into consideration when planning our policy.

Mr. James Davidson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Government's continued policy of importing meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic is not only discouraging to home producers of lamb and beef but places a complete embargo on the export of quality lamb to markets such as the United States which would otherwise be open to us?

Mr. Hoy: That has not got much to do with the Question. The hon. Gentleman knows what action the Government took in relation to mutton and lamb coming from a particular country. Indeed, the Northumberland Committee is now inquiring into it, and the hon. Gentleman would not want me to anticipate that Committee's findings.

Seals (Culling)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the extent of the culling of young seals.

Mr. Hoy: There have been no official culls of seal pups around the coast of England and Wales since 1965. Contractors employed by the Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee shot a number of adult seals near Great Yarmouth last year.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that anyone can shoot the common seal? Is it not about time that legislation was passed to protect the seal, because there is evidence of considerable cruelty and considerable public concern? Will the Minister consider a system of hunting licences?

Mr. Hoy: The Government are always concerned about cruelty to any type of animal. The seal is not excepted. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a possibility of legislation being introduced. Indeed, a noble Lord introduced a Bill in another place last Session. Perhaps there will be a follow-up of that Bill.

Mr. Body: Has the Parliamentary Secretary made any inquiries into the unofficial culling of common seals?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. However, I take this opportunity to inform the House that we are not free agents. There are difficulties of access. If we are to deal with grey seals we must get the permission of such bodies as the National Trust. Unless we secure that permission, there is nothing we can do about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act (Operation)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to enforce the standards of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the

hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) on 20th November last.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the working conditions of hon. Members and the facilities for the staff of the House are far below the standards of the Act, and should not the place where the law is enacted set an example in enforcing it?

Mr. Peart: I assure my hon. Friend that, as an old Member of the House, I have always accepted this. The standards are not what I would like, but as long as I am Lord President I will try to improve them.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members are particularly concerned about the slow progress being made with the improvement in the low standard of lighting in the Palace?

Mr. Peart: I will look into this. I know that the hon. Member has taken a particular interest in it, and I will do what I can.

Catering

Mr. Henig: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will undertake a review with the aim of ensuring that the prices of items of food and refreshments sold in the House of Commons are not greater than those charged at comparable commercial enterprises outside.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
Such reviews are constantly made.

Mr. Henig: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer is quite inadequate, and that in the cafeterias and snack bars we are invited to pay such prices as 5d. for bread and butter, and in the restaurant Is. 9d. for a thimbleful of cream? Surely hon. Members ought not to be penalised for the peculiar conditions that are inevitable in serving refreshments in the Palace of Westminster or be expected to make up losses incurred in the distant past?

Mr. Maxwell: The Catering Sub-Committee is not seeking to make up losses for the distant past. We attempt to pay our way. If the hon. Member


wishes to complain of specific prices such as he has mentioned we shall be glad to look into them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that prices are not being related to the cost of staff alone, and that the recent dismissal of a popular executive in the Strangers' Room was not on grounds of economy?

Mr. Maxwell: This matter really requires another Question to be put down. I am glad to assure the House that the member of the staff to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred was not dismissed but resigned, and that the Committee is looking into the circumstances. In reply to the first part of the question, I am glad to assure the hon. Member that price increases are related only to cost increases.

Mr. Henig: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps he plans to take to improve the service in the Members' Cafeteria.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
Alterations to the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias are to be made during the Summer Recess. These will result in larger kitchen and service areas, and enable, it is hoped, a generally improved service to be given to Members, staff and guests.

Mr. Henig: That is a most welcome piece of information. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members have to entertain guests in the cafeterias downstairs, and is he aware that the evening menu has not, to my certain knowledge, been changed for the last three years? It has remained at Welsh rarebit, pork sausage and "chips with everything".

Mr. Maxwell: All the dishes which my hon. Friend has described are splendid ones, but I must correct him; only last week we had at least two changes. If he finds the fare monotonous, I shall be glad to look at it again.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman rest assured that the quality and the courtesy of the service is probably higher in the Members' Cafeteria than in any other establishment in the country?

Mr. Maxwell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I assure him that the staff will appreciate this, and will continue to give the good service which they have given in the past.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the real trouble that, instead of an intellectual presiding over these affairs, we ought to have someone with a knowledge of business?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kitson.

Mr. Kitson: rose——

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. I was listening at the microphone and I had the impression that you called me, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) got up again. He got up rather unexpectedly.

Mr. Speaker: That point of order has cost a Question. Mr. Kitson.

Mr. Kitson: Will the hon. Member make a personal attempt to kill the mice that have returned to the cafeteria?

Mr. Maxwell: This is obviously an occupation for intellectuals, and I cannot give that undertaking, but I will certainly take up the matter with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Lord President of the Council (1) on what date the Catering Sub-Committee authorised the continuation of the one shilling surcharge on meat courses after the ending of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom;

(2) whether he is aware that although the foot-and-mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom ended many months ago the one shilling surcharge on meat courses imposed for its duration is still charged; and if he will now take steps to remove this.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
There has been no formal decision by the Catering Sub-Committee. The surcharge has been retained because meat prices have, regrettably not dropped since the end of the epidemic.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not wrong that the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee should on his own authority


manipulate prices in this manner without the consent of the Catering Sub-Committee or the House?

Mr. Maxwell: If the hon. Member wishes to insist on that question he had better put down a Motion to that effect. The authority for price rises is with the Catering Sub-Committee, and the surcharge has not been withdrawn for the reasons which I have stated.

Specialist Committees

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to establish a system of specialist select committees to investigate regularly the administration of Government Departments.

Mr. Peart: The House earlier today approved my proposal for a Specialist Select Committee on Scottish affairs, and I recently announced proposals for a new one on Overseas Aid and Development. The House will, of course, wish in due course to review the progress of this experiment.

Mr. Mitchell: On the surface the Answer sounds very satisfactory, but will the Lord President explain why it has been necessary to kill the Specialist Committee on Agriculture and to threaten with extinction the Select Committee on Education and Science? Surely it is possible to have more Select Committees, if necessary with a smaller membership?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should appreciate that there is no attempt to kill any Committee as such. Indeed, my hon. Friends on the Select Committee on Agriculture will know that I welcomed it. The Committees were selected for an experimental period and we are continuing the experiment.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the success of these Committees depends upon the will of the House and not upon the will of the Government, and that ample opportunity should be given to the House to decide what their future shall be?

Mr. Peart: When the experimental period is over, the House will have to come to a decision.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to ensure that the proposed new specialist committees, and their possible sub-committees, will be adequately staffed both in quality and in numbers of clerks.

Mr. Peart: I believe the success of the specialist select committee is dependent upon the adequate staffing of the Clerk's Department. Discussions are continuing, and I am hopeful that we shall achieve the full complement by the end of the year.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that discussions have been proceeding for a long time, that we are still under establishment and that the existing clerks are under tremendous pressure to carry out the extra load that is, quite rightly, being put upon them in an attempt to control the Executive? Will he say what steps are urgently being taken to get more clerks in the immediate future?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the problem, and I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that I am always locking at this matter.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: By how much has the establishment of clerks gone up since the Specialist Select Committees started?

Mr. Peart: I could not give the exact figure. The full complement is 42, and at present there are 39.

"Save the Argylls" Petition

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the estimated cost of paying House of Commons officials to check the signatures on the Save the Argylls Petition.

Mr. Peart: The Select Committee on Public Petitions has not yet reported on the number of signatures, but if a million signatures were counted the cost would be about £80.

Mr. Dalyell: Is this counting a proper activity for serious people? How are the serious being sorted out from the ribald, and will he say what weight is given to signatures like those of Alexei Kosygin and Johnny Mao Tse-tung.

Mr. Peart: I cannot reply to that question.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the staff are busy counting the signatures the Government have ignored the views of over a million people?

Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that other Scottish regiments were closed down by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that further expenditure of time and money would be saved if the Government would reverse this deplorable decision which has caused an explosion of anger amongst friends at home and abroad?

Mr. Peart: If I were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, it would cost a lot more.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFING)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On 16th January last year, as part of my statement in the House on public expenditure, I said that
Government Departments will, under the guidance of the Treasury, plan their staffing so that over the year 1968–69 there is no further net increase in the number of civil servants as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 743, c. 1591.]
In fulfilment of this announcement the Treasury took as the estimated figure for the beginning of the financial year 1968–69 474,200, being the estimated number of non-industrial civil servants, excluding Post Office staff, who would be in post on 1st April last year.
This was the figure subsequently published on 28th March in the Financial Secretary's memorandum accompanying the 1968–69 Estimates, and it was adopted as the ceiling to be enforced by achieving reductions wherever these could be made within individual departments. I gave the House an interim report on this matter in the debate on Fulton on 21st November last. The net effect of some slight changes in classification

means that, on a comparable basis, the ceiling which was set should now be expressed as 472,800. I can say now that the total of the departmental ceilings for non-industrial manpower for 1st April this year has been held at 472,800, thus fulfilling the target which we set last year.
In the event the actual realised figure in employment last April—470,550—fell short of the estimate, and, therefore, the 1968–69 ceiling. I cannot at this stage forecast the actual figure for 1st April, 1969, but the House will wish to know that the latest figure, for 1st February, is 470,300, which is not only below the ceiling we set but is very slightly below the actual figure for 1st April, 1968. For the first 10 months, therefore, of the financial year covered by my statement, the number of non-industrial civil servants has been held steady and indeed very slightly reduced.
Now, turning to the year beginning 1st April, 1969, the gross figures will be complicated by the fact that, with the consequences of the Post Office Bill now be-bore the House, about 15,000 non-industrial members of the Post Office staff will be employed in the new Department for National Savings and the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, and will, in future, therefore, be included in the Civil Service non-industrial manpower figures.
Clearly, this transfer within the public service does not affect the totals. On a comparable basis, taking the starting figure this coming April of 472,800, ceilings which are being set for the non-industrial Civil Service, excluding the former Post Office staffs I have referred to, at 1st April, 1970, add up to 481,500, an increase of 8,700 or about 1·8 per cent. over the year.
I would have preferred to be able to tell the House that we could hold the line in absolute terms for the coming year. The screening and cutting down which has kept the total from rising in the year now ending has been continued on the estimates submitted for the year ahead, and, as a result, the increase is considerably less than the total of the figures put forward by Departments as what they regard as their minimum requirement on the basis of the work that has to be done.
What ever arguments we may have had, or may have, about individual policies, the House will be aware of the effect on the public service of demographic and other changes outside the control of individual Governments, unrelated to policy changes of any kind. At the same time, policies accepted by the House as a whole have involved in the past year—and will involve in the future—additional manpower.
For example, within the increase of 8,700 in manpower ceiling which I have mentioned, more manpower will have to be provided for in the Department of Employment and Productivity, about 700 in fact, in the Factory Inspectorate, the placing work of the employment services, the progressive implementation of the Industrial Training Act, the work of the rapidly expanding Government training centre programme and, most recently, the planning and development of the policies outlined in the White Paper on industrial relations—in particular, the creation and staffing of the Commission on Industrial Relations.
Similarly, there is to be provision for an additional 1,100 for the improved manning of the prison services, and about 250 for immigration work. Examples of other tasks for which additional staff will be required are the Board of Trade's work on exports and the Ministry of Transport's work on the road programme. Against these there is an offsetting reduction in the Ministry of Defence, estimated at 450.
For these and other reasons it has not been easy to hold the increase down to the figure I have quoted, and, while the progressive implementation of the Fulton Report will help to ensure the maximum economy and effectiveness in the use of manpower, in the early years, including the coming year, the establishment of machinery to ensure this, to improve personnel management and virtually to double the Civil Service central training programme, for which right hon. and hon. Members have frequently called, will involve some increase in the Civil Service Department itself and in the relevant sections of individual departments.
The House is aware of the reviews of Civil Service manning, now well advanced in their work, such as those under the leadership of Sir Robert Bellinger. These

were designed mainly for the longer term and although we hope progressively to receive economy reports from Sir Robert and his colleagues, no allowance has been made for this in the figures I have given for the coming year.

Sir E. Boyle: Without in any way wanting to minimise the real efforts made in a number of Departments, may I ask whether the prospective increase of 8,700 by April, 1970, is not a rather high figure? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members feel, for example, that the Industrial Training Act was supposed to place the main responsibility on industry rather than on the Civil Service? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what work is being done in the Civil Service Department to see that the most continuing attention is paid to organisation and method in Government Departments, bearing in mind the constant need for management efficiency?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member has a most distinguished record in this regard as a member of the Fulton Committee, and we all understand his deep concern about these problems. He has queried the increase of 8,700, which I regret. I have given the House indications of the reasons why it is necessary to appoint more, and that excludes the remainder I mentioned—demographic reasons, which the right hon. Gentleman will understand better than most, such as school population, the increased number of retirement pensioners, the number of those now becoming available for supplementary benefit and the rest. All these add up to the total.
I am sure that, when the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study this complicated statement, if he has any suggestions as to where there can be reductions within the figures I have mentioned, the House would wish to discuss them.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Civil Service Department and the general implementation of Fulton. He welcomed the fact that we are virtually doubling the central training programme this year. We would have liked to go further and faster—[HON. MEMBERS: "We wish you would."] The right hon. Gentleman, to whom I am replying, asked about the implementation of the Fulton Report, which he signed. As I was


saying, we would like to have gone further and faster in improving Civil Service management. We have a long-term plan for Civil Service economists, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but we have not been able to go ahead with it because of the need for economy this year.

Mr. Maxwell: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving that which he set out to do. I recognise that the increased numbers are for services which are much needed and which will be much more cost effective, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider inviting civil servants to suggest to him how economies may be made in Departments and sections which have long lost their purpose but appear to be quite impossible of being axed?

The Prime Minister: They have every opportunity to co-operate in the much greater area of consultation which is now available following the Fulton Report, because all that has been done in the implementation of Fulton is done in the closest consultation over the Civil Service as a whole and locally. I agree that some of the increases which I have mentioned will be highly cost-effective, for example, in terms of industrial training, the Government training centres, and many other matters that I have mentioned. But we are not content to leave economy to the Civil Service Department or to the consultations. We have appointed this high-powered committee of industrialists to go through the Civil Service and do exactly the job which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the figures have been affected by the inability to recruit up to establishment and whether the total cost of the Civil Service since 1964 has risen by about £120 million a year?

The Prime Minister: I dealt with the question of recruitment in the debate on the Fulton Report. It is not affected by what I am saying. I am referring to the departmental ceilings fixed for April. It is not clear whether we shall be able to recruit up to the ceilings. It will be clear from the figures that I have given that, in April of last year, recruitment fell short of the ceilings which were set. I

have assumed in my statement that there will be no falling short through recruitment.
On the hon. Gentleman's other question, he will have a chance to debate those points on the Estimates, which set out the figures year by year.

Mr. Thorpe: While the Government are to be congratulated on seeing that there has been no net increase, does not the Prime Minister's statement mean that, by 1970, the Civil Service will have started to increase in an upward direction again? Is that not depressing?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long these distinguished industrialists will take to complete their inquiries? Does he not think that there is a case for independent efficiency audits in each Ministry comparable to that which has been tried out with success in the Port of London Authority?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know what is being done in the matter of efficiency audits, but I hope that he will not under-rate the high-powered inquiry being conducted under the general direction of Sir Robert Bellinger and a number of other independent industrialists, who can recommend the calling in of any particular audit.
With regard to the increase of 8,700 next year—1·8 per cent.—I have indicated the reasons why additional recruitment is required. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else to attack these figures. They are fair game. However, many recommendations of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would involve much bigger increases.

Mr. Dempsey: Even though it means an increase in the number of Civil Service employees, will my right hon. Friend see to it that an additional allocation of factory inspectors is allowed for Scotland to enable them to promote and enforce fire prevention practices in our factories and workshops in view of the recent dreadful tragedy in Glasgow?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a very strong case. I would not like to answer particular questions about where, geographically or functionally, additional factory inspectors will be appointed. But my hon. Friend's argument is one which has been pressed very


often in this House for increasing the number of factory inspectors, which we are doing.

Mr. Ogden: Is it not as misleading to apply a simple numbers game to the Civil Service as it is to the police? Should not the only criterion be, have we the skilled qualified manpower to perform the task which the House puts on the Civil Service?

The Prime Minister: That is a fair question. As I explained during the debate on the Fulton Report, I believe that the recommendations of Fulton will, over a period of years, involve considerable economies in the Civil Service through better management and training. However, during the interim period, while that is starting, we are having to face a slight increase in staffs in the Departments without getting the corresponding economies which will result from their employment.

Mr. Frederic Harris: May we have comparable figures for local government officers and an estimate of the large number of employees in industry who are doing the work which would normally be done by civil servants?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's point about local government employees is a separate question. Last year, when I announced the Civil Service target figures, we instituted new controls on local government expenditure, though I notice that the Conservative Party has been pressing for increased expenditure from the central Government to the local authorities, which means the employment of far more local authority staff as well as an increase in taxation. I have often found that when there has been a cut in the number of civil servants, for example, by the party opposite, there was a corresponding and greater increase in non-productive employment in private enterprise establishments doing the same job.

Mr. Strauss: When considering the cuts in staff, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the shortage of staff is frequently a major cause of delay and inefficiency?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right. I get as many questions

about delays in the delivery of letters to Members of Parliament and in meeting applications from the public for supplementary benefit as I do about increases in the size of the Civil Service. The House has laid a job on the Civil Service.

Mr. Onslow: Too much.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member says, "Too much", but I do not think that he opposes the increases that I have mentioned today.
Over the years, the House has laid duties on the Civil Service, many of which are totally non-controversial. If there is an increase in the birth rate in one year, automatically there will be an increase in the number of public servants in respect of education four or five years later. A similar situation arises with an increase in the number of old-age pensioners.

Captain W. Elliot: In recent years, the proportion of civil servants in the Defence Departments has increased dramatically compared with the number of uniformed men in the Services. Taking that into account plus the fact that there have been slashes in service manpower during the past year or two, is it not surprising that the reduction in the number of civil servants has been only 406?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have welcomed this reduction, which has been a continuous one, in the Civil Service manpower of the Defence Departments since 1964. It is true that the ratio of non-uniformed persons—"non-effectives", if I may call them that—to uniformed members of the defence Services increased during the 1950s.

Mr. Woodburn: Can my right hon. Friend say what has been the increase in the number of civil servants required to correct evasions and avoidances of Income Tax and Surtax in slick ways?

The Prime Minister: Under successive Governments, I know that there have been increases here. I remember, for example, that in the 1960 Finance Act we had to act quickly to deal with evasion. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) was involved in the operation. He himself


evaluated the evasion as being at about the rate of £100 million a year in lost revenue. There has been a continuous increase in appointments for this kind of work.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Peter Shore. Statement.

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT TO 1972

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs 'Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is always courteous.

Mr. Shore: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As I promised the House last week, the Economic Assessment to 1972 was published today. My intention, in publishing the assessment, is to make available for the widest study and discussion the Government's view of the likely development of the economy over the next four years.
The assessment takes as its starting point the necessity to earn a balance of payments surplus of the order of £500 million a year and to maintain this substantial surplus for a period of years. After allowing for a contribution from non-trade items, we believe it to be prudent to aim at a surplus on visible account of about £300 million a year.
The assessment considers the rates of growth of national output consistent with the surplus which we need. It discusses a range of possible growth rates from an average of a little below 3 per cent. a year to an average of around 4 per cent. a year. Within this range the assessment takes as the starting point for further analysis a basic case of an average growth rate of 3¼ per cent. a year and sets out the reasoning behind this. But this basic case does not constitute a forecast of what will happen. It is, indeed, one of the main purposes of publishing the assessment and the subsequent consultations with industry to help to achieve a higher rate of growth providing always that it is compatible with our balance of payments requirements.
The working population of the country will remain stable over the period of the assessment and we cannot, therefore, expect a contribution to growth as in the past from an increase in the working population. But we do expect a contribution to output from a fall in the level of unemployment, although the speed at which we can increase the level of employment will depend both on our successes with the balance of payments and on the continued success of our regional policies. A strong regional policy will remain essential if we are to make full use of our labour resources in the country as a whole.
To meet our objectives of a substantial surplus and greater economic growth a switch of resources is required. The first claim on our increasing resources must be for exports and imports saving. Secondly, while the share of public expenditure will remain broadly stable, there will be important shifts within the total, particularly a reduction in resources allocated to defence. Thirdly, although private expenditure will increase, there must be a fall in the proportion of resources going to consumption. Lastly, and very important, a larger share must go to productive investment.
Arising from discussions in the N.E.D.C., certain key sectors of industry, including chemicals, vehicles and engineering have been selected for detailed consultations through the E.D.C.s or in other ways as appropriate. A central part of the consultations will be to identify the contribution of these industries to our balance of payments objectives. We shall go on to consider jointly the constraints hindering better economic performance and the action required to remove them. These further consultations with industry will be taken fully into account when we come to revise the assessment.
The assessment starts a new phase in the process of consultation between Government and industry. It begins against the background of real improvement in exports and investment. This must be sustained. To this end, discussions must be wider than the N.E.D.C. and the E.D.C.s and, indeed, wider than this House. The task ahead, which the assessment describes, is one for all of us.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad to see him in better health? Although we have fierce views on the future of his Ministry, I would regard it as indelicate to take them up today when we are discussing what, with luck, will prove to be the epitaph of his Department.
The right hon. Gentleman has put a range of three different targets of growth before the House: the basic case of 3¼ per cent., a lower one of 3 per cent., and a higher one of 4 per cent.
First, what is the status of the Green Paper, which I think is being issued this afternoon? Is it entirely a Government document, or is there to any extent an endorsement by the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. even of the range which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated?
Secondly, the original plan estimated a growth of 25 per cent., from 1964 to 1970. Taking the basic case which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House, he is planning for 24 per cent. growth from 1964 to 1972. Are those figures accurate? If they are, does not this show that the Labour Government have wasted at least two years?

Mr. Shore: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks. However, his remarks about the D.E.A., and whether or not this will be its epitaph, only reveal his lack of recent acquaintance with Government Departments and particularly economic Departments.
On the status of the document, it is a provisional economic assessment which we shall be seeking to expand and reinforce following our consultations with industry and the E.D.C.s. As for its status in relation to the N.E.D.C. we did not put it to the N.E.D.C. as a document which we asked it to approve. But, as I said in the House last week, the N.E.D.C. is content with it as a reasonable starting point for consultations with industry.
On the rate of growth, it is true that the basic case is somewhat lower than the 3·4 per cent. increase in productive potential which was foreseen in the 1965 National Plan. It is only marginally less than that rate. But, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we are presenting a range of growth rates of which this

is the basic case and not the upper case, which will be higher.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 1965 National Plan it was reckoned that a 7 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment would be needed to achieve a 3·8 per cent. growth rate? What rate of increase in manufacturing investment does he reckon he will achieve and how can he do it and, at the same time, strive for a £500 million surplus on the balance of payments, although even that is not as bad as the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Enfield West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who wants a surplus of £750 million? In how many years does my right hon. Friend plan to have a £500 million surplus on the balance of payments?

Mr. Shore: The balance of payments surplus is a requirement simply because we have to take account of the very substantial indebtedness which we have built up since 1963. My hon. Friend asks about the growth of investment in manufacturing industry. The document has a great deal to say about that. My hon. Friend will find in the document an increase of about 25 per cent. is suggested.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman made yet another of the familiar generalised exhortations for import saving. Would he represent to the Minister of Agriculture that our farmers could make a very substantial contribution to it if they had the essential factors making for confidence, namely, that the Government will deal with imports of dairy products and other commodities and give them a reasonable price for their produce?

Mr. Shore: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we expect a considerable contribution from agriculture during the period covered by the assessment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has put to the House our proposals for an import saving contribution from this industry alone of about £160 million a year.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of growth mentioned in his statement will cause disappointment to people in the development districts who expect an early reduction in unemployment? Will he look into the matter very closely, because it concerns not only the question of unemployment,


but the task which he has set himself, of achieving an export surplus in the years ahead? Those two things simply do not go together.

Mr. .Shore: I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of past events, would accept that the rate of increase
in activity and the decline in employment in development areas are by no means closely related simply to the growth of the G.N.P. itself. Part of the purpose of the policies which we have pursued in the last four years is to give an above average rate of growth to the development areas, even during a period when the rate of national growth has been slew.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consultations which are proposed with industry are a great improvement on the cut-and-dried National Plan, but why are they to take place merely with selected industries? Will he say whether the economic assessment will be updated, or is this another one-off exercise of the National Plan type which will be swept under the carpet if it does not work? Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of referring this matter to a Select Committee on economic affairs so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to participate in the performance of the Government in meeting their targets?

Mr. Shore: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind in the last part of that supplementary question, when he refers to a Select Committee on economic affairs.
To answer his question about the range of industries which are mentioned in the last chapter of the document and with which the Government will be having specially close consultations, we arrived at this group partly as a result of our analysis of what looked like the most important sectors of industry in terms of expert performance, and partly as a result of discussions in the N.E.D.C. as an agreed programme. However, I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that other industries, and other E.D.C.s, are being left out, because they are not.
To answer his question about updating, we must wait for the initial reaction of the E.D.C.s to the document, but I assure him that we have in mind the need for

further revisions and a roll forward on a regular basis.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in advocating a £500 million surplus and a 3¼ per cent. growth rate he has appeared to put this document within the Treasury's stranglehold? Where has the competitiveness between the D.E.A. and the Treasury, which was originally supposed to exist, gone? Allowing for this framework, will not this compound unemployment at its present rate, particularly since this rate of growth is only half that advocated by the T.U.C.? What are the views of the T.U.C. on this aspect?

Mr. Shore: The important point is to face the real world, the real situation and and our need to repay our substantial debts at a high rate. I do not accept—although I assure my hon. Friend that I know that this is worrying him very much—what I understand to be his fear that the rate of growth which we have put forward and the rate of export surplus which we have set ourselves is incompatible with a falling level of unemployment. During the last few months we have already experienced a very welcome fall in unemployment and, as he will know, there are many "bullish" signs in the economy In the right places, such as investment and exports.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the Government will count themselves fortunate to achieve a surplus of £300 million a year, does that mean that the Government now expect that it will take about 10 years for the indebtedness which the country has incurred during the period of Labour Administration to be paid off?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has a poor memory. About one-half of the £2,000 million debt about which we are talking was incurred in 1963–64. I also wish to correct the point he made about these figures. I did not speak of £300 million as being an overall balance of payments surplus. I spoke of it as being a visible trade surplus, with £500 million as the overall balance of payments surplus.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend sure that his priorities in this assessment are correct, particularly in regard to the emphasis which he has


placed on the balance of payments? is he also sure that, in the operation of this plan, he will have the C.B.I. and T.U.C. with him?

Mr. Shore: I am certain that we must give overriding importance and priority to getting the balance of payments right and achieving the surplus which we have indicated in the document. We have, of course, already had discussions with both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. Obviously, the T.U.C. as it made clear in its Economic Review, would wish us to go for a higher rate of growth than the one we have put forward. However, as we have indicated to the T.U.C. on many occasions, we do not believe that such a rate of growth would be consistent with an export-led boom; and we cannot have a domestic-led boom because that would lead us once again into balance of payments difficulties.

Mr. McMaster: Leaving aside the present minor political difficulties in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this rate of growth will enable the Government to continue to assist the Government of Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the large number of people unemployed in Northern Ireland—the figure is 8 per cent. and is, unfortunately, rising—could, if provided with employment, help in the national interest?

Mr. Shore: I believe that Northern Ireland will benefit, as will other development areas and regions, from the emphasis which we have put on our policy of containing the still very dynamic growth forces in the South-East and the Midlands.

Mr. Bagier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the important question of unemployment is not merely a statistical one, but a human one? Is he further aware that the North-East in general, and my constituency in particular, is having more than its fair share of unemployment? Does he see in this policy statement a move which will result in the unemployment of this area taking part in assisting to increase the prosperity of the country? Will these policies make a big inroad into the tragic unemployment problem which we now face?

Mr. Shore: The document pledges that we shall go ahead with a strong regional policy during the period covered by the assessment. I have no doubt that this will make a substantial contribution to easing the problem of unemployment in the development areas.
As for the Northern Region, about which my hon. Friend was speaking, there has been a specially difficult problem during the past year as a result of the high run-down of the coal industry. That run-down will continue, but I am glad to say that it will not be at a rate as high as that experienced during the past year.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY,14TH MARCH

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. Fred Evans.

Mr. W. E. Garrett.

Mr. Michael Alison.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Marten: On a point of order. May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point which I would have raised during Question Time, but which I did not raise because I did not wish to delay the proceedings?
In aswer to my Question No. 17 to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was referred to a speech made on 4th July, 1967. For the benefit of the House, would you agree that we should try to get away from this business of hiding behind previous comments, so enabling Ministers not to give real Answers? Are you aware that in this case I was referred to a speech which was made 19 months ago?

Mr. Speaker: During the long time that I have been in Parliament, Ministers have referred to previous Answers. It is not within my power to prevent them from answering Questions in the way they choose.
I am glad that the hon. Member has waited until after Question Time to raise this matter. Points of order raised during Question Time cost hon. Members their Questions.

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL (COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS)

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. Are you able to advise the House, Mr. Speaker, on the little local difficulty which arose in the early hours of the morning, when an hon. Member was in possession of the Committee and the Closure Motion was moved so that the hon. Member who was speaking could not continue his speech?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has no official knowledge of what happens when Parliament is in Committee. I would always deprecate an appeal being made to Mr. Speaker against a decision of the Chair in Committee; and, indeed, about anything that may have happened in Committee.

Sir C. Taylor: It has been traditional that various matters of this nature have been referred to Mr. Speaker. I requested last night, even though you may not have any knowledge of it, that this procedure should have been referred to you. I did not give you notice because I

assumed that, although you had no knowledge of it, it might perhaps have been brought to your attention.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is an old Parliamentarian. He has not understood what I have said. Officially, Mr. Speaker has no knowledge at all of what goes on in Committee. It would be wrong to appeal to Mr. Speaker against what has happened in Committee, either about the Chairman of the Committee or about any other procedural event that took place in Committee. This is traditional, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, knew that.

Sir C. Taylor: I am sorry to pursue this point, Sir, but if the tactics used early this morning are used again what redress have we got?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on this twice. The hon. Gentleman has no redress through an appeal to Mr. Speaker about what happens in Committee. What happens in Committee must be dealt with in Committee. This is not a new invention of Mr. Speaker. This is the tradition of the House over a long time. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman looks to his history he will realise that hundreds of years ago the Committee of the whole House was set up to keep Mr. Speaker out.

ORGAN TRANSPLANTS

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to rationalise and reform the law on the transplant and donation of organs.
The question of organ transplants presents us with one of the most searching and difficult problems of our time——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen who wish to transplant themselves do so quietly.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps the most acute problem which faces mankind as he moves through the second part of the 20th century is how are the discoveries of science to be used in the service of man without dehumanising him? The advance of science, particularly in the field of transplantations, has moved forward at a breath-taking pace. Only this month, we have had the first successful experiment in the transplanting of a larynx. In the face of these very rapid changes it is reasonable that there should be widespread fears that the technology which can, on the one hand, promise the delivery of a paradise, could, in fact, leave us with a hell.
This fear is not unreasonable; it is held by those with religious views and by those with none at all. While we should certainly take this into account, and while it should make us cautious, it should not determine our attitude towards this subject. We should nevertheless bear in mind that the right to die in dignity is an important and valuable human right, and that respect for the body as such, the remains of a person who has been precious to relations and others, should be upheld. The duty of burying the dead is one of the corporal works of mercy.
Even more important than this principle is the principle of the value of life. Some people have expressed surprise that I should be sponsoring a Bill which attempts to liberalise the law in this direction. I am animated in this matter by respect for life, which is why I have been against abortion and capital punishment but for these transplants. It is necessary to draw a line to balance the considerations which I have outlined. The Human Tissue Act, governing the existing situation, draws the line in the wrong place. The purpose of my Bill would be to shift

the line, although not to abolish it altogether.
Today, people are dying because of a shortage of the necessary organs. In many cases donors have been put off coming forward because of the repellent and sensational publicity which has accompanied a number of these operations. I have had discussions with surgeons about this. A most distinguished surgeon told me that within the last four months, in his experience, at least five people had died who might have been saved had organs been available. In his experience, at the end of 1968 there was a list of people who had been waiting for one year, but were still not in sight of receiving the organ they needed. Another surgeon has revealed publicly that last year two patients died because no heart was available for a transplant.
My Bill would apply to all organs, hearts, kidneys, livers, etc., because it is not sensible to try to distinguish between them. The Bill would make three principal changes in the law. First, it would give full legal effect to the directions of the deceased that his body, or part of it, should be used for transplanting or research. At the moment, there is no property in a dead body and the carrying out of the wishes of the testator depends upon executors and the relations, if any. Equally, the Bill will give effect to his wishes if those wishes forbid his body being used in this way.
The second and major change the Bill makes is to remove from relations their right of veto. This faces one with a painful choice. I very much respect the feelings of survivors, but the social and human need is so pressing that one has to make a choice. The painful choice has to be made that the wishes of the survivors may have to be overridden.
At this point one should bear in mind the pain and distress themselves caused to relations if, at the moment of bereavement, they have to make a decision of this kind. In many ways they are better off, being relieved of having to make such a decision. I cannot believe that the vast majority of people, if they knew that an organ, either belonging to themselves or to someone else, could save a life would do other than say, "Take it".
The third provision of the Bill is a safeguard. There is a fear that doctors,


instead of being healers, will become a species of medical vulture, waiting to snatch organs away from people as soon as they are dead. There is the even more pertinent fear that they will be worse than vultures, and will attack the body even before it is dead.
This is a reasonable fear and my Bill provides a safeguard that certification of death must be made by two doctors, one of five years' standing, who have no connection with any possible transplant operation. The Bill will contain no definition of death, because it would be a mistake at this stage for the law to commit itself to one. I offer one to the House, namely, that death is the final and irreversible cessation of perceptible heartbeat and respiration. But the working out of this is much best left to the medical profession.
Finally, the Bill would provide a conscientious objection for people like Jehovah's Witnesses. They may be a very small minority, but, precisely because of that, their needs should be respected.
I hope that the House will give permission for the Bill to be introduced. If nothing else, it may jolt the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security into taking the energetic action which is urgently needed in this field. The Bill concerns a particular problem, but I hope that eventually a commission of a semi-permanent character will be set up to consider all the ethical problems raised by the advances of science in so many directions.
The Bill affirms the value of life. It would make it easier to save it. It offers hope in certain instances to those who are despairing. I believe that it is worthy of support and I ask the House to give me leave to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. David Steel, Sir Gerald Nabarro, Mr. Ben Whitaker, Mr. Ian Gilmour, and Mr. Hugh Fraser.

ORGAN TRANSPLANTS BILL

Bill to rationalise and reform the law on the transplant and donation of organs; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th February].

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clause 3

VOTING DECLARATIONS

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With Amendment No. 21 it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 23, 117 and 205, in page 3, line 28, leave out 'seventy-two' and insert 'seventy'.
In line 34, at end insert:
'nor shall it be deposited by a peer who had attained the age of sixty-five years before the dissolution of the last previous Parliament in respect of the first declaration to be deposited by him'.
In line 28, leave out 'seventy-two' and insert 'eighty'.

Mr. Tuck: I shall be as short and to the point as I possibly can be and I hope, though it is perhaps a forlorn hope, that hon. Members who follow me will also be short and to the point. My speech might already be written for me by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), who made a speech on this point this morning, although he was supposed to be speaking on an entirely different matter but did not appear to notice that himself.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order. Is not the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) a reflection on the Chair?

Mr. Tuck: In my submission, this is a bad Clause as it seeks to limit to 72 years the age at which Members of the House of Lords may vote. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already mentioned certain factors which might have a bearing upon this decision, but in my own view there is one factor which may have taken precedence in his consideration; that is, that people of 72 are perhaps too old to vote. He is probably thinking of old dodderers.
If people are old dodderers then let us stop them speaking rather than stop them voting, or stop them both speaking and voting, because if they are old dodderers they will probably go on and on, as do some hon. Members on both sides of this House, either because they like to hear the sound of their own voice or because they consider that it is justifiable for a minority in this House to frustrate the will of the majority by filibustering.

Mr. Roebuck: That is an American term.

Mr. Tuck: It is an American term which is in use in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roebuck: It is not.

Mr. Tuck: It is, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would allow me to make my speech. He made his this morning and I raised two points of order. If he wishes to do the same he may do so.
If people are old dodderers then let us stop them speaking rather than voting because they may take up the valuable time of the House. On the other hand, it can be argued—and I shall argue as forcefully as I can—that people of 72 are not necessarily old dodderers at all. They may be past it at 50, in which case it is unjustifiable that society should be burdened with them going on speaking and voting until they are 72.
I have had the experience in court, not necessarily when I have been speaking, of seeing, at half-past three in the afternoon, a rather elderly judge who has gone to sleep during the proceedings, having to be awakened by the loud dropping of a book.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What would it have been like had it been half-past three in the morning?

Mr. Tuck: I hesitate to answer my hon. Friend on that, but I have seen judges go to sleep, people who are past it, and who should have been eased out earlier.
It is my submission that these people, whether or not they are Members of the House of Lords, should be eased out if they are past it at 50, 60, or even 70. On the other hand, there are others who are not at all past it, who are useful members of society. Why should

society be burdened with those past-it members of 50 and be deprived of the valuable services of others who have gone beyond 70, but who are as active and robust as ever?
I have taken the trouble to look up some ages which I would like to give to this Committee. Sir Winston Churchill retired as Prime Minister when he was 81. I wonder what would have happened if we had forced him out at 72? Lord Attlee, who retired as Opposition Leader when he was aged 72, in 1955, went on for very many years as a useful Member of the House of Lords. Sir Harry Brittain is still active at the age of 95. Viscount Samuel died at the age of 93 in 1963. He retired as Liberal Leader in the House of Lords when he was 85 and was a really useful member of that body.
It is not only in the House of Lords that this applies. Lord Goddard who, I am glad to say, is still in the land of the living, retired at the age of 81 in 1958. He was a most active and useful Lord Chief Justice up to that time. Lord Palmerston fought his last election at the age of 81 in 1865. Lord Birkett retired as Lord Justice of Appeal when 74, but went on in the House of Lords; and hon. and right hon. Members may remember that he made a brilliant speech on the Ullswater matter on the Wednesday of one week and was due to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Wednesday of the next week, but died on the Sunday in full vigour at the age of 85. Should he have been limited to 72?
Mr. Gladstone retired in 1895 aged 85, again a vigorous and active man. Baroness Asquith died recently at the age of 81. There are many such hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) is a most active Member. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) is a very active Member indeed; and although hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House very often disagree with his views, they listen with respect to those views because he is an experienced man in the field on which he speaks. His views are always listened to with respect.
Then there is my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). a very active, useful, vociferous, vigorous


and virile Member of this House. But what does my right hon. Friend propose to do with him when he goes into the House of Lords? He does not propose to stifle him. He proposes to emasculate him immediately.
4.30 p.m.
Parliamentary eunuchs have no place in our system of government. Therefore, I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to reconsider this matter. Surely, there could be some machinery for easing Members out when they are a little past it. Perhaps a Committee of the House of Lords, consisting of Members under 60, could be set up to determine when someone had got a little too old—[interruption.] I know that it would be awkward, but it is just as awkward in the business world. When a man is past his prime and usefulness as a director of a company, the other directors ease him out. I know that it is awkward, but they do not feel that they should be burdened with him any longer.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Under the Companies Acts, directors over 70 have to submit themselves for approval by the shareholders at the annual general meeting. This is somewhat different from what the hon. Gentleman is proposing.

Mr. Tuck: We might be able to do it another way. Members could retire at 72 unless they were—I will not say reelected—renominated for a certain period by a committee of the House of Lords. But we have a difficulty. We would have the useful Members renominated so that they could go on, but we would have the useless Members going on until the age of 72 without any means of getting rid of them. I want some means of getting rid of Members of the House of Lords, whatever age they are. Therefore, I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General should consider the setting up of a committee which will decide which Members are fit to go on and which are not.
I realise that it would be awkward, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to devise a means of ensuring that the House of Lords is neither burdened with Members who have become too old, nor is deprived of the services of Members who can go on after their 72 years. I remind the Committee again that the late

Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' greatest judgments in the United States as a judge of the Supreme Court were made between the ages of 70 and 90.

Mr. John Farr: I support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck). I agree with the idea, elaborated so well a few moments ago, that it is nonsensical to think that people are past it at 72 years of age. The hon. Gentleman delved back into history and gave some very cogent examples of famous people who have been extremely active, and who were at the height of their powers at the age of 72-plus.
I should like to deal in more detail with one or two figures better known to Members in general in this connection. It seems utterly ridiculous that we should pontificate on a matter of this nature as it applies to the age of a Member voting in another place, yet we have the gall to suggest that the same rule should not apply here. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Farr: I will give way in a few moments. I have only just begun.
Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Bill is enacted we will be asking voting peers to work a limited week with no constituency responsibilities. Yet we are prepared to allow Members of Parliament to discharge much more exhaustive duties in this Chamber with no age limit—as those of us who were up last night will have learned to our cost—and, in addition, to have the responsibility of handling constituency problems at the weekend. It is the height of arrogance on our part to suggest imposing an age limit on voting peers without consideration of how such an age limit should be applied here.
I think that the hon. Member for Watford is right in suggesting that subsection (3) should be left out. We have daily proof in the House of Commons of Members on both sides doing a fine job of work who are over the age limit of 72.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Incidentally, I saw the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago and


told him that I should be mentioning his name in the debate. As soon as he learned of the context in which I was to mention his name, he was highly delighted and told me that I had his full consent to go ahead. He gave me a bit of information about himself. But I also found out, before coming into the Chamber, that the right hon. Member for Easington was born in 1884, which makes him 85 years of age. Seeing him from this side, I think that he does more than his fair share of Parliamentary duties in this Chamber. He takes more than a fair part in debates and more than carries his weight. Indeed, checking through the HANSARD index for the 1966–67 Session, the right hon. Member for Easington made no fewer than 20 formal speeches, and over 300 other speeches, questions and interjections were accredited to them.
The right hon. Gentleman was Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party at the age of 83. That is not a job for kittens. From what I know of the Parliamentary Labour Party, especially of some of the Members, it is a job for a man of the highest calibre who has really to be on the ball. He needs eyes in the back of his head in case he gets a dagger in his back. Yet the right hon. Member for Easington handled the back-bench committee's affairs in a masterly manner until the age of 83.
At Question Time I saw the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). I could not help thinking of him as a typical example of a good, active Parliamentarian at the age of 79. He does not perhaps contribute quite as much as the right hon. Member for Easington, and he is not so periodically on his feet, but I have always found his contributions to debates in the House of immense value.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan) indicated assent.

Mr. Farr: I am glad to see the Under-Secretary nodding.
The experience of the right hon. Member for Llanelly as Colonial Secretary and in other Ministerial offices which he has brought to bear in our discussions across the Floor of the House on one subject or another has been of immense value.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: In nodding I was agreeing with everything that the hon. Gentleman was saying concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. On the other hand, I beg him to remember that one of the most dangerous canons of false logic is to argue from the particular to the general. What the hon. Gentleman says about my right hon. Friends does not prove the general case at all.

Mr. Farr: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman feels that he is right in what he has said. All I seek to do is to choose a few examples of elderly Members to show that, without exception, they are doing a particularly fine and noteworthy job which hon. Members on both sides recognise.
As I was saying, the right hon. Member for Llanelly has always brought his experience to bear in a debate and it has been of immense value to Members of the House. I would hate to think a person with that experience and statesmanship would not have his talents made useful in another place simply because we had written into a Parliament Bill the figure of 72.
I would turn to one other Parliamentarian, the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, who was Member for Woodford and who was born in 1874. He led our nation to a brilliant victory in the war at the age of 71 and finally returned to the Office of Prime Minister at the age of 77, retaining that office until into his 80s. He did an unsurpassable job as a wartime leader and he also did a pretty good job as a peacetime leader.
Winston wiped away all the claptrap of controls, regulations and rationing—the old machinery that was left over from the war. It needed a man who was on the ball to dismantle all the old Socialist web of controls and restrictions, to restore free enterprise, to abolish the food rationing which we had, even until 1953, in respect of certain food commodities such as butter, bacon, eggs, sugar—in fact all the commodities.
It required a man of exceptional ability, exceptional skill, exceptional vigour and efficiency to carry out, as did Sir Winston during the years from 1951–54 the complete destruction of the fabric of rationing to establish once again the availability in the shops to the people of the


foods and necessities of life. That was Sir Winston Churchill, who was in his 80s when he passed on the job of Premier to someone else.
I dare say that one would be in order if one seized on any person in his 80s and gave a little discourse on the merits of his career and applied it to this Amendment. I am not seeking to delay the proceedings. I am speaking of people I know, not only historical figures, but those who have impressed me by their ability.
There is one other great person nearing his 90s who is still very much "with it", a very skilled Parliamentarian who, I understand, the Members of both Front Benches, especially the Government Front Bench, treat with the greatest respect, and that is General de Gaulle. The General is more than a match for the Socialist Front Bench and probably a match in statesmanship for any Front Bench we have.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Could one say who predominates between General de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer, who was 89 when he gave up the Chancellorship?

Mr. Farr: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. He has mentioned the President of Germany, Dr. Adenauer, and called attention to his remarkable age when he retired. He was the wizard who fabricated the wonderful financial structure which Western Germany enjoys today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Erhardt."] It was done under Dr. Adenauer's supervision as leader of the party. When he retired he handed on a heritage of the utmost value to those who followed him in Germany.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Perhaps we could add to the list President De Valera, of Ireland, and President Tito, of Yugoslavia.

Mr. Farr: I was not going to forget the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in my remarks.
I would call attention to the ability of some of These people. General de Gaulle we do not know perhaps quite as well as some of our own colleagues. I well remember, however, when he came to London in his 'seventies about four or

five years ago, and addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. He spoke to us in French for half an hour. On our chairs we had a written translation in English of what he intended to say. He spoke without a note in his hand and never diverged for a moment from the writen translation; not so much as by a full stop or comma. This was a magnificent feat in a crowded, short visit to this country to a high-powered audience in Westminster Hall.
From those four aged persons I have mentioned I suggest that the Committee can draw a lesson and, I hope, reject subsection (3) of this Clause.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: We were all fascinated by what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. John Farr) has just said. I do not think that the suggestion that General de Gaulle was necessarily full of vigour, because he spoke in French for half an hour, is a very good argument; it does happen to be his language. Many of the arguments he put forward are very valid, but I would not think that that is the best argument to be put in relation to this case.
I would say something to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), who said that he hoped that all the speeches in this debate would be short. The hon. Member must know that all our speeches have been short; none of us has made long speeches in this debate at all.

Mr. Walter Clegg: It is not easy to make a long speech when one is closured by the Whips.

Mr. Heffer: I know, but I think that everybody would accept that we have kept to the minimum of words and have clearly expressed our thoughts in the concisest possible way. My hon. Friend should have no fears at all that any hon. Member is likely to dream of making a lengthy speech.
I agree that this Clause ought to be removed from the Bill. The Bill should be removed as well, but this Clause, in particular, should be removed. It should be removed because of this magic figure of 72. Why 72? Why not 70? Why not 80? Why not 92? Why not 102? Why 72?
We have tried to find out how many Members there are likely to be in the other place; no one knows that figure, it cannot be written in. There have been long arguments about how many Members there would be in the new, reformed second Chamber. No one can tell us; no one wants to tell us, but they can tell us it has to be 72. This is absolutely amazing. Let us think about it for a few minutes. Who was responsible for bringing in the Bill? My right hon. Friend, who is mainly responsible has now transferred his affections to another Department—at least, his affections have been transferred to another Department. He may have been the one who was captivated by the figure 72.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: How old is he?

Mr. Heffer: He is not yet 72. The occasion probably arose when my right hon. Friend was having a bath. He had not much to do at the time, but the terms of the Bill were going through his mind and the figure 72 probably came to him in a blinding flash.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If he was in his bath, it might have been due to the temperature of the water.

Mr. Heffer: That is the explanation. That clears up the mystery. That was the reason why he arrived at the figure of 72.

Mr. Clegg: Very scientific.

Mr. Heffer: It is very scientific. The explanation is quite rational, and I shall not pursue it further.

Mr. Gower: Is it not also the fact that 72 is the greatest number of Labour rebels who have abstained on Divisions on the Bill? Could it have been that figure?

Mr. Heffer: That may have been on my right hon. Friend's mind at the time. It is possible that it was, together with the temperature of the bathwater and a number of other factors. Anyway, we have the magic figure of 72. It is ridiculous to put such a figure in the Bill. I am against the whole idea of nominations for the second Chamber, but if we are to have a second Chamber of any sort it

is ridiculous to impose an age limit upon its Members. It would not be long before we started imposing a limit on the age of Members of this House, or members of local authorities.
Some hon. Members have talked about Parliamentarians. I can think of first-class local authority administrators who have been councillors and aldermen for many years—and who have given a great deal of good service to this country—who are well over the age of 72. I can equally well think of some who should have departed from the scene long ago.
I remember a certain amount of frustration arising in Liverpool because a Member had said that he would never retire from the House of Commons except feet first—and that is what happened. It led to quite a bit of frustration on the part of the chaps below, who thought that he should have retired a little earlier. Such matters as these are for the constituency parties. If they are not satisfied with their Members, they are the ones to determine whether they should continue to stand for the House. A democratically elected second Chamber would be much better, but an age limit of this kind cannot be written into a Bill like this. It is one of the most absurd things that have ever been put before us.
That is why I shall support my hon. Friends and reject the other Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has suggested that we should reduce the age limit from 72 to 70. Perhaps he will enlighten us about the way in which he arrived at that mystic figure. I can understand people retiring at 65 if they have been in industry and have done hard work in the pits or on building sites. Then it is only right that they should retire at 65. But there should still be a certain element of choice about the matter.
We all know of men who have been in a certain job all their lives, and who have died almost immediately after being forced into retirement. If they had been given the opportunity to continue in their job they would probably have lived. This is a matter for individual choice. A retirement age should be imposed for industry, but a certain element of choice should be allowed within it. To write it into legislation is the height of absurdity,


and I hope that the Committee will support my hon. Friend in dividing.
We hoard quite a bit yesterday, or today—I am lost because of the way that we have been conducting these discussions—about topping-up.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That was this morning.

Mr. Heffer: I thank my hon. Friend.
It was absurd to include the figure of 72. If we have the magic figure of 72 we have to top-up when there is a change of Government and each time a Member reaches the age of 72. Hon. Members should think of the problem that would confront my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Raymond Gower: And the Liberals.

Mr. Heffer: And the Liberals.
Imagine the immense problems—the great deal of thought and energy that will have to go into deciding how to solve the problem, and whom should be put in to top-up the figures. My right hon. Friend must be spared this job. He has enough burdens and problems without having this additional requirement constantly to top-up the other place. We should remove the Clause from the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend does not need any topping-up although he might need some propping-up. He has no one with him at the moment, and the Opposition Front Bench is only a little fuller than it was yesterday.
I hope that at the end of the debate—which will not go on for more than five or six hours—my hon. and learned Friend will tell us that he accepts this sensible and wise Amendment.

Sir Ronald Russell: I support the Amendment. I am against any rigid age limit or forced retirement purely on age grounds. No limits are imposed in either House at the moment, and until the Bill was produced I had never heard anyone suggest such a limit. The expectation of life, especially in the Western world, is increasing, and presumably people will be less senile in future than they are now at a given age. They will be more useful than they have been and are now.
If any example is needed, we need look no further than the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who made a very witty interjection just now. I looked up his age and found that he is 74. He belies any need for an age limit. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others in the House who are over 70 have been mentioned. There are three or four national leaders, some dead and some living. Two at least will not be palatable to the party opposite, but they are able people. General Franco is about 77 and the late Dr. Salazar of Portugal was about 80 when he died not long ago——

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Dr. Salazar is still living.

5.0 p.m.

Sir R. Russell: I apologise to the Committee. My recollection was wrong. Other examples are Mr. Nehru, who was well over 70 when he died, and the Emperor Haile Selassie, who has had a long and distinguished career as Head of State and is still going strong at well over 70. President de Gaulle is another obvious example.
I support the Amendment and I hope that, if the whole Bill cannot be thrown out, at least the subsection will be.

Mr. Michael Foot: I start by expressing my regret that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has left us, overcome by emotion at the suggestion that the elderly should not be catered for in politics. I think that, in saying that I am sorry he has gone. I speak for everyone in the Committee. I believed, when I saw him sitting there so contentedly for a few minutes, that there had been a change of view on the Opposition Front Bench, and that that would contribute to our debates. I am not complaining, I am gratified to see other spokesmen who have come, and I hope that, throughout the day, there will be a dispensation so that Whips can speak, which will be of great assistance to us.
In this Clause, we have again the right to insist on the point which we have made time and time again, but which is justified particularly here. The Solicitor-General said this morning that this question of the age limit had been put in


the Bill not as part of any agreement but as a decision of the Government and it was on that basis that he defended it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, but he will no doubt be able to explain more fully. If he is advancing the alternative proposition that it is part of the agreement, we will be equally interested. That will open up another fruitful line of inquiry. Either way, we shall be glad to have the authoritative opinion of the Solicitor-General about the source of this decision.
I once again plead that we should have from the Opposition Front Bench an indication of their view on this matter. I repeat that one of the reasons why these debates have been made more extensive than they would otherwise have been is that we have had an entirely novel situation of no advice being offered to the Committee by the Opposition Front Bench on issue after issue on which the Committee is entitled to their opinions.
Without the assistance of the Front Benches, let us try to discover for ourselves the origin of this proposal. Everyone who has heard the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) and other hon. Members has heard underlined the invidious nature of making a pronouncement that people are to cease to have their voting rights in another place at the age of 72. All have produced arguments showing that many people in our public life over many years, at a much more advanced age, have been able to make great contributions to our public life. Therefore, it appears absurd to have such a restriction. That is the common feeling in the Committee.
So let us see what the origin is. The place to turn to is the White Paper, which says in paragraph 44:
In the long term, however, it would be wrong for a working legislative chamber to contain an indefinite number of members, however distinguished, who were well beyond the normal age of retirement from active life: and …
this is the most essential part—
if members were to be paid (see Paragraph 52 below) it would certainly be wrong for membership

to carry with it the right to be paid for the remainder of a life-time. It is therefore proposed that after a suitable date a peer who had reached the age of 72 at the end of one parliament should be precluded from voting in the next.
The White Paper therefore leaves no doubt that the origin of this restriction derives precisely from the idea that members of the so-called reformed new Upper Chamber were to be paid. That is what both Front Benches said. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in response to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), said that the White Paper incorporated the agreement. Those were his words. So this is an agreement between the Front Benches that there should be payment of peers, and, consequent on that, the agreement about 72.
Therefore, it is not only a question, whatever the Solicitor-General may have said this morning, of the Government putting forward the figure of 72. That figure was agreed by the Opposition Front Bench.
Admittedly, it was agreed by the two Front Benches—and the Liberals, presumably. There was no dissenting voice so far as I know, although the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) will, no doubt, tell us if there was any dissent by his leader——

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I was not party to any of these agreements, if there were any agreements. As the hon. Member will have noticed, there is a larger majority in my party against the Bill than there is in his.

Mr. Foot: I should be most grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would convey to his leader the opinions held by many of us that it would be advantageous for the Committee, just as we have asked that the other parties to the agreement should come here and tell us precisely what they agreed, if the leader of the Liberal Party did the same, It is a justified assumption from what I have said that the leader of the Liberal Party also agreed to this figure of 72.
According to the White Paper, the reason for fixing it at 72 was that salaries were to be paid and it is not now a certainty—although many of us believe it—that they will be paid in the end. We believe that, eventually, a proposal


to that end will be introduced which will, presumably, restore the validity of the arguments, if there is any validity, for 72.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: would the hon. Gentleman take this matter a little further? Assuming that the noble peers do retire at 72 and they get: salaries, as we think they probably will, what are they expected to live on after retirement? Will they get a pension, the dole or what?

Mr. Foot: We must first discover whether they will get a salary up to the age of 72. I agree that we should then wish to establish what is to happen to them afterwards. In the White Paper, which was agreed by the hon. Gentleman's leaders as well as mine, it is said that the reason for fixing the level of 72 was because it was thought to be wrong to agree to pay somebody for the remainder of a lifetime. That is why a figure has been put in, not necessarily the figure of 72.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. Harvey) here; he is a very influential member of his party. I do not know if he investigated matters in the 1922 Committee, but as we have been unable to get answers in the House of Commons, perhaps we should look for them in the 1922 Committee. We had information about what happens in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and it was not an inaccurate description, but I do not want to trespass on these matters.
It is no good the hon. Gentleman barracking me here. Any hon. Gentleman who dissents from the proposal for the figure of 72 must fight it out with his own leadership. He must first question his leadership on why it was agreed to insert the figure of 72, and he must then inquire from them why the figure was kept in the Bill when the proposal for making payment, which had been the cause of putting in the figure in the first place, had been removed. Those are the two questions on which we would like authoritative answers, but it appears that we are to have no replies from those qualified to speak on the matter. Many other hon. Members may demand answers, as may the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), but I am sure he will agree that his answer cannot be authoritative.

Mr. Ridley: Will not the hon. Gentleman go further and agree that if we were to make the Amendment and leave out the subsection it would preclude the Government from paying Members of the House of Lords at a later date, because of the reason for putting in the subsection in the first place? In other words, these people would be paid until death, however senile they were. We could strike a major blow for victory if the Amendment were to be carried.

Mr. Foot: I will come to my attitude towards the Amendment in a moment. I was first seeking to discover why a proposal which appears so absurd to hon. Members in all parts of the House, should have been included in the Bill.
I come now to my attitude to the Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has an Amendment, which we are discussing with this Amendment, which proposes a reduction of the age limit to 70 in certain circumstances. Proposals are also made for fixing the age at which people can be appointed to the second Chamber. Those proposals are made to overcome other difficulties in the Bill. I will listen carefully to the arguments which my hon. Friend will put forward for his Amendment, because I am in general sympathy with his approach to the Bill.
I find it extremely invidious for this House to suggest that it will lay down an age limit, whatever may have been the original reason for proposing it. I object to the second Chamber continuing at all, but I do not think we should send up a Measure that is laden with fresh absurdities and fresh insults to Members of the other place. It is an insult that we should lay down precisely when we think people will be unqualified to continue to give their advice to another place, particularly when we are saying that we think ex-Ministers will be perfectly qualified to retain their voting rights in the other place but others will not. I do not believe in the distinction between ex-Ministers and non-Ministers. I do not like this process of Parliamentary apartheid, there is nothing to be said for it. It would have to be a very persuasive argument to convince me that it would be proper to send a Bill to the other place which suggested that an age limit of 72


should be fixed for everybody except ex-Ministers.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Or the bishops.

Mr. Foot: We shall be reaching the bishops some time after Easter. The division between the attitude expressed in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) and the attitude that may be expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ton-under-Lyne shows the same division of outlook as in the previous set of Amendments. There is a division between the attitude of the Amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and that of some hon. Members on this side of the House who were seeking to limit the occasions on which peers should be able to exercise their rights. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was saying what is implied in some Amendments which we are now considering, that the only way to rescue anything from the Bill is to make the Members of another place as independent as possible. There is a great deal to be said for that argument. The hon. Gentleman says that we must therefore remove any restriction about when a person can be removed from the other place and we must ensure, once he is there, that he is there for life, which would ensure an element of independence.
5.15 p.m.
His view seems to be once a peer always a peer; once a boy scout always a boy scout, and it is once a Chief Whip always a Chief Whip as we look at the Opposition Front Bench—that is sometimes the way in which we bring it up to date. The idea of once a peer always a peer does give a certain independence, but the difficulty is that the more it is pressed the more it comes up against the other principles incorporated in the Bill. The Bill is not designed to make independent peers.
If the Bill succeeded in what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to secure by his Amendments, that the peers would be independent, then my prophecy is that the resulting clash between the two Houses would be utterly disastrous. If we were to incorporate into the Bill a series of Amendments which fortified those who are ennobled for years to come,

fortified them in advance with independence and security of tenure, then the result would be to undermine the central principles of the Bill, which seek to ensure that the Government of the day shall always have a safe majority in the other place. In other words, the more we put into the Bill Amendments designed to insert a degree of common sense into it, the more we ensure that accusations of bad faith will arise.
If a Government is threatened by a revolt of peers who have been sent there to sustain a Government majority, then accusations of bad faith will be made against individuals who turn against the so-called mandate which they have been given for going there at all. There will be accusations of bad faith as to whether people have a right to exercise their rights in these circumstances. It is an intolerable situation that we should set out to make an arrangement whereby there will always be the suspicion hanging over the Members of the other place that they are not abiding by the implicit undertakings which they had to give in order to be sent there, or that they are being obedient to those undertakings for motives which we would regard as desirable if they were attributed to ourselves. These are the inevitable consequences of the kind of Measure with which we are presented. On these Amendments, even more clearly than on some of the others, we illustrate some of the dilemmas in which we are placed in these discussions.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member is obviously correct about the existence of an age limit, but surely his argument should not be pursued to the extent that the age limit should be 72. It could be a higher age.

Mr. Foot: As I say, I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We all have to make very awkward choices in this place. When the vote comes some of us will have to choose whether to vote for this Amendment removing the age limit although it would remove the obstacles I have been trying to illustrate. I hope against hope that some Minister will try to answer these philosophical arguments, if we can dignify them by such a term, which underlie the Bill. The Government do not do that, nor do right hon. Members of the Opposition Front Bench.
Because these things are not founded on principle something is pushed through without the exact nature of what we are doing being revealed. Those on the back benches are seeking to reveal what we are doing and are showing that these will be the consequences. No one can deny that the invidious nature of the proposal for sending people to another place on these terms, whether they abide by the mandates or break them, will face charges of bad faith, particularly at times of great national crisis. The question of how the House of Lords will settle a matter will be of supreme importance only when the future of the State is at stake. In five, 10, or whatever number of years it may be, when the Government of the day, formed from whichever party, is shaken to its roots, the whole issue will depend on what is to happen in the House of Lords. Then inevitably there will be charges of bad faith against those members of another place acting contrary to the assumptions which underlie the Bill.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Does the hon. Member believe that the Government in that case would be able to find men and women of distinction to go to another place to be mere puppets for the Government of the day?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would be going beyond the bounds of order if he answered that question. Perhaps he will relate his argument to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Foot: I thought that I had gone a little outside the bounds of order, but I must have been in order or otherwise you, Mr. Gourlay, would have pulled me up. If I did not pursue the matter it would be almost tantamount to a criticism of the Chair. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but I emphasise, because of some of the comments we hear about our debates generally and some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, that those of us who oppose the Bill do so because we believe that implicit in it, almost inextricable from it, is a constitutional clash of major importance. I think it almost a certainty that it will happen if we allow the Bill to go through in these terms. It would be a clash which

would be settled only if it came to the point at which by the creation of peers and the exercise of the prerogative there were the exercise of rights which under this Bill the Government are supposed to be surrendering.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is there not an alternative? If the Clause stands as it now is, it will be open to a one-line Amendment lowering the age to such as would give the Government a majority in another place.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. We are discussing Amendment No. 21, which proposes to leave out subsection (3), not the Clause.

Mr. Foot: As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggested, it would be possible to alter the nature of the Bill in some degree by altering the age limit up or down. Partly such objections are incorporated in the Amendment which follow, but that would be an invidious way of seeking our objective.
On balance I would vote for this Clause unless my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne produces overwhelming arguments in favour of his alternative suggestion. I make clear that in voting for such an Amendment, despite the apparent good sense of doing so, that would be only on the understanding that it would make even more difficult in some respects the operation of this Measure. The more we look at it the more the Measure becomes unamendable in any sense which would reform it altogether. The nature of the Bill itself is so diseased that the infection it contains can spread throughout the whole Parliamentary system. I cannot see that it can be remedied by any slight treatment of some of its symptoms. Only by a surgical operation, only by cutting its throat, can this animal be cured.

Mr. Ridley: I shall try to answer some of the very powerful arguments which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) developed. I hope that he will not think me discourteous if I start by referring to one or two less important points.
The first of those lesser points concerns the suggestion by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) that there should be some screening to decide when


old peers are senile. I support his Amendment and I was honoured to have my name coupled with his in support. I am a great believer in removing the age qualification, but the mind rather boggles at the thought of a screening committee for senile peers such as he proposed. I am not sure that it would not have to be this House which performed the function. I think we would have to shout "Object" to impersonalise the operation and remove any personal stigma from those by whom objection was taken. It was not a possible solution to the dilemma.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would the hon. Member accept the other way which was proposed, that there should be some retiring age and that the Lords as a whole or a committee could extend a peer's term of office if it were found that he or she was a very useful member of the House of Lords?

Mr. Ridley: That is the nearest I have heard to a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
5.30 p.m.
The White Paper contains this curious provision:
It is important that during the early days of the reformed House as many as possible of the more active members of the present House should remain available and continue as full working members to give the benefit of their knowledge and experience in what must inevitably be a period of adjustment, and the age of retirement would not therefore be introduced immediately.
So the argument is that there are many over 72 in another place who are extremely useful and should be allowed to continue. The burden of the Government's case that people over 72 are not useful was built into the Bill at the very beginning, which is an extraordinary contradiction in relation to the transitional period from the beginning to a later period when the House has transformed itself into a new House.
The fact that we have to invoke the services of old and senile men to get an organisation on its feet which by definition excludes men of that age because they are old and senile would be a sufficiently futile proposition to put to this House to start with, but it becomes odder still when we read how the Bill treats this provision in legislative form. At the end of subsection (4) these words appear:

or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow".
I presume that the House there referred to is the House of Lords.
Here we have the provision enacting a White Paper that these old but useful Members will be allowed to vote beyond the age of 72 during the transitional period. It is phrased in exactly the words used by the hon. Member for Watford in his intervention—
as the House may for special reasons allow".
There is a temporary enactment of what the hon. Gentleman wants, and the House of Peers will solemnly shout, "Object" to its own Members to indicate whether those over 72 will be allowed to have the vote during the transitional period, whose length is not determined. For a period of unnamed years the House of Lords will be able to blackball some of its own Members who are over 72 until in its collective wisdom it decides to cease the practice and to blackball all of them who are over 72.
I appeal to the Government to defend the double proposition that I have outlined. It is clearly beyond defence in either logic or in law. The Solicitor-General will agree that there is no precedent in English law in words as loosely drawn as these—
or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow".
What do those words mean? What is the legal authority for them? What is the machinery? Where is it provided in the Bill how this provision is to be interpreted? It is an insult to bring forward legislation as loosely drafted and as meaningless as that sentence.
There is the further small point that the Bill is so drafted that a peer is excluded if his 72nd birthday falls outside a Parliament; but if it falls the day after the commencement of a Parliament he gets a further period, perhaps five years if it is a five-year Parliament. So there will be peers sitting in the reformed House who will be within a few days of 77 before they are forced to retire. On the other hand, if the 72nd birthday falls the day before a dissolution the peer will be disallowed. So there is this rather large margin of five years between the lucky ones and the unlucky ones.
I do not want to labour the general proposition that to limit membership by


age is a proposition we cannot support. I would only add to the anecdotes which have pleased the Committee, which is now in very genial form after the good progress it made earlier today, that I believe that Dr. Adenauer's eldest son was an old-age pensioner when he, Dr. Adenauer, was still Chancellor. If one can grasp that conception, it proves that age need be no bar to the successful wielding of political power.
The noble Lord, Lord Montgomery, moved an Amendment to the Homosexual Bill in another place to provide that the age of consent be 80. A real dilemma is thrown up by the wide range of different ages which have been suggested as "the chopper". There is 80 at the extreme, which Lord Montgomery, in the wisdom which is so much a speciality of another place suggested, right down to the old-age persion, which starts at 65 for men and 60 for women. I have never understood why women grow older five years quicker than men. The whole question of when someone is old varies from profession to profession.
The hon. Member for Watford, in his brilliant speech, argued that it would be totally inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill to give independence to peers, to give them the greatest possible sham independence, but independence within the system as proposed in the Bill. I do not think that the two instances he cited showed that there was much variance between us. The hon. Gentleman said that I had tried to abolish the retirement age and had tried at the same time to limit the need of a peer to apply for a new dog licence when his old one had run out, to give him a feeling of continuity. A peer has by right to receive a writ, so whether my point this morning had been gained or lost would make no difference to the fact that once someone is a peer under the Bill he always will be a peer.
This Amendment would not cramp the independence of a peer, because, whether he must retire at 70, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggests, or at 72 as the Bill provides, or at death, which is my proposal, he still has some degree of independence. The purpose of my Amendment is not to erect something which will mirror the House of Commons, because if there is a ratio of 60 to 40 between the parties in the House of Commons it is pointless

to put a ratio of 60 to 40 between the parties in the House of Lords and for the majority to operate almost by remote control. This is what is envisaged by the I anonymous authors of the Bill. I want people of perhaps second-class spirit who will sit in the other place and, on occasion, vote against the strings tied to them.
This might be described as a wrecking Amendment, but the Solicitor-General should accept it, for it will prevent a future Government from saying, "We I have changed our mind. We cannot; find people to sit in the reformed House s of Lords. The pay is not enough and t the P.I.B. recommends that they should have 2,000 guineas a year." We confidently expect this to happen sometime after the Bill becomes law, if it becomes law.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not sure; which Amendment in this group I can support because they are like the curate's egg, both good and bad. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) pointed out how many hon. Member's of this place live to a ripe old age, like; my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is 85. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) supported that argument and added to the list of elderly Parliamentarians.
I agree that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington is one of the most active, vigilant and able men in this place. But I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Watford call in aid the fact that judges may be over 80 yet still active. He went on to speak of a judge who had fallen asleep while he was addressing him and that he had to drop a book to wake him up. Does he consider that poor old judges who cannot stay awake are the people we want in another place?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I did not call in aid of the Amendment the case of a judge who fell asleep. I said that people like that should have been retired long ago. Nevertheless, there are many judges who are in their prime at 80 and even 90.

Mr. Lewis: Whatever his age, a judge should not fall asleep in court. We do not want that sort of thing happening in the House of Lords.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that only judges and the elderly feel tired and fall asleep? Young people feel the same.
[Sir Beresford Craddock in the Chair.]

Mr. Lewis: We are not speaking about young people. Many of the people in the other place will be aged. It has even been suggested that 80 is not too old. The hon. Member for Harborough could not understand why there should be any age limit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) pointed out, the question of payment is tied up with this. I am apprehensive at the thought of having permanently pensioned people of 70 and 90 drawing substantial sums for attending and voting, but doing nothing more.
It has been pointed out that there is no age limit in the House of Commons. The big difference is that the magnificent right hon. Member for Easington or any other hon. Member may be voted out of office by the electorate or not readopted by the local constituency party. Indeed, the national party might even suggest that certain people should not continue as hon. Members. I understand, however, that there will be no means of getting rid of people appointed to the Lords. Whereas we can apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and find ourselves unemployed for various reasons, they are there for life.
It has been suggested that we do not impose age limits on others. But we do. We are very short of policemen but, certainly in the metropolitan area, they have to retire at 50. It is rather a young age. A man can be in the prime of life at 50. A great servant of this House, P.C. "Tubby" Cannon, resigned this week. He is no doubt perfectly fit and able to carry on with his job, but, whether he likes it or not, he must go—and I am sure he is not entitled to or permitted to draw a £2,000 a year pension for life. Then there is the case of civil servants and local government servants.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get a little more to the age of peers rather than go too far out.

Mr. Lewis: Had you been in the Chair when my hon. Friend the Member for

Watford and the hon. Member for Harborough spoke——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I appreciate that there were passing references but not so extensive as the hon. Gentleman is inclined to make.

Mr. Lewis: I started by explaining that I am in a quandary as to whether the age limit should be 65, 70 or 72. An hon. Member said that 80 is not a great age and referred to a number of people. I was saying that, although we do not prevent hon. Members from carrying on to a great age, we prevent others from doing so in their jobs. Indeed, my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, only recently decided that justices of the peace could not carry on beyond a certain age. They are compelled to resign even though they may be fit and able to carry on.
We have made it a rule that civil servants retire at 65. The case of Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery has been mentioned and we can quote a number of others. I cast no aspersions on him or on the others. He and they will be drawing not only their salaries or pensions from the House of Lords but also their retirement pensions and their army pensions.

Mr. Roebuck: Lord Montgomery is not retired. As a field-marshal, he is on the active list.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. But there are others who are not field-marshals drawing army pensions.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am trying to hang on to the argument but am finding it rather weighty. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to think that there should be an age limit but that he has not made up his mind as to which it should be? If I can get that clear, I can hold the argument with greater ease.

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that there should be an age limit nor what it should be if we have one. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has a powerful case and I want to listen to him. I have not been fully convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford or by the hon. Member for Harborough.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I appeal to my hon. Friend not to be prejudiced against


Lord Montgomery, because in the last defence debate in the House of Lords the field-marshal made the most sensible speech of the lot.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) always makes good interjections but that one was not up to his usual standard. The Committee knows that I made no aspersions against Lord Montgomery. He is one of our greatest men and I would not say a word against him. But if we are to have an age limit of 65 or 70 or 72 for the House of Lords we should remember that we compel civil servants to retire at 65. That is the difference and it is all tied up with the question of salaries. If, however, a civil servant retires and then takes another job within what one would loosely term, "state service", his pension is reduced pro rata. That applies also to local Government officers who have retired. But no such pro rata deduction will be made in the case of their Lordships. They will continue to draw their fees or state board salaries, if they are getting them. They will continue to draw expense allowances and /or salary in the House of Lords. We shall be creating a situation in which many individuals will be receiving state aid as peers in excess of what is paid to a Minister of the Crown and probably in excess of what is paid to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that many local authority officials who retire go on to be elected to local authorities—unfortunately, usually of the persuasion of the party opposite? They then play an important rôle in public affairs. Could not higher civil servants, unless the age limit of 65 was laid down, be nominated for another place? I do not think that we have the right to put this limit.

Mr. Lewis: Many former civil servants or local Government officers may serve on local authorities but they do not get a salary. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is a great practical Member. He does not decide what the Prime Minister is going to do, although I agree that it is a great pity and that it would perhaps be better for us if the Prime Minister were to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as much as he does

to, say, the Lord Chancellor. People who serve on local authorities do not get payment. They may get out-of-pocket expenses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought for a moment I was getting the cheers, but I see that there has been a 300 per cent. increase on the Opposition Front Bench.
Now perhaps I can deal with the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale failed to get satisfaction. There is this package agreement, which is tied up with the question of age and whether Members of the other place should be paid salaries——

6.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): Order. We are discussing the age limit, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would keep to that.

Mr. Lewis: Of course, Sir Beresford, but we are also discussing with the age limit for voting, the age at which a wage or salary shall cease to be applicable, be it 72, 65, or whatever age is finally agreed My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale went to great pains—[Interruption.'] At least my remarks have made some impression on the representation on the Opposition Front Bench. We are now seeing a rapid increase both in numbers and in weight. My hon. Friend has been trying to get an answer to this point throughout our debates. Unless we know whether these people are to be paid and how much they are to be paid, we do not know whether to ask for them to be debarred both from membership of the Lords and from receiving the State life pension to which they would normally be entitled. Perhaps the ex-noble Lord, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), can help us on this question. Is there an agreement between the two Front Benches, which has now been broken, about the salary that these people shall receive?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. There is no mention of salary in the Bill. I must again ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the point, which is about the age limit.

Mr. Lewis: It was in the White Paper, Sir Beresford, and I accept implicitly the word of my right hon. Friend the Prime


Minister, as always, that there will be, at some time——

Mr. Elystan Morgan: May be.

Mr. Lewis: Very well. There may be a salary.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This has been quoted before. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
This does not mean that we have decided that voting Members should not be paid at some time in the future, or that they should. It simply means that we are preserving an open mind so that the matter can be considered in the light of experience at a more suitable time in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 55.]

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for helping me to make my point. I could not have done it as well as that. He has shown, quite rightly, that there may be or may not be a salary paid to these people at some time. We cannot get our own Front Bench to reveal whether there will be a salary——

Mr. Roebuck: Or the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Lewis: Quite so. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone can tell us. I will gladly give way to him if he can.

Mr. Angus Maude: Whether or not the Government are keeping a vacant mind about this, is it not clear that, if there was a package deal involving salaries, the Prime Minister has broken it?

Mr. Lewis: With respect——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to leave this matter of salaries. There is nothing about salaries or other remuneration in the Bill, as far as I can see, and I should be grateful if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) could confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order, Sir Beresford. A number of us have seen the influence of salaries pervading every single Clause. Although there is no mention of a salary in the Bill, its effects are present in every Clause. It is very difficult to discuss the Bill rationally without bringing into play the question of salaries.

The Temporary Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Sir Beresford. May I submit to you that, as the prospect of a salary is given in the White Paper as the principal reason for the retirement age, it is difficult to discuss the retirement age in the Bill intelligently without considering whether there will be salaries.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to both Members for their help. I do not mind passing references to salaries. Such references are inevitable. However, the hon. Member for West Ham, North is dwelling on it too much, and I would be grateful if, gradually, he could move away from it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Sir Beresford. Is not the Government's reason for having a retiring age that they do not want to go on paying salaries?

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot tell what is in the Government's mind.

Mr. Lewis: This is the quandary we are all in, Sir Beresford. Neither you, the Opposition Front Bench nor my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, the most brilliant hon. Member in the House, can understand what is in the Government's mind.

Mr. Will Griffiths: My hon. Friend is making his speech at a unique moment. On the Opposition Front Bench at the moment there are two right hon. Gentlemen, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who are both leaders of the party opposite—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has decided to leave. I was about to say that my hon. Friend is in the unique position of having two right hon. Gentlemen present, both of whom have served in the other place, both of whom are members of the Shadow Cabinet, and both of whom are able, therefore, to inform the Committee on this subject, probably better than anyone else. Unfortunately, one of them has already flown.

Mr. Lewis: Sir Beresford, I mean this honestly and sincerely—[Interruption.] I often wondered what was wrong with Harrow——

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Sir Beresford. Is it not quite out of order for a statement from the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to be greeted with incredulous laughter from his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). Should not the laughter be withdrawn?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order, but it has enlivened the proceedings somewhat.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to deal with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths). He may not have been present in the early hours of this morning, but a similar interjection was made by one of my hon. Friends when the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was questioned on the point. What happened then has happened again in the case; of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). As soon as they were questioned about it, they ran away. The only representative remaining on the Opposition Front Bench is the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone, but he will not let us into the secret.

Mr. Gower: What makes the hon. Gentleman think that past experience of the House of Lords will be any guide to future experience of it?

Mr. Lewis: I am not talking about experience, or lack of it, in the House of Lords. A package deal was made. The two sides are equally responsible for coming to this agreement about paying £2,000, I think. When it was discussed earlier, it was suggested that the two sides agreed that after writing-off the £1,250, which was recognised as the average Parliamentarian's expenses, £2,000 were left. As the noble Lords, whether they be 70, 72, or 65, would not have constituency expenses, it was felt that if we left them there until the age of 72 and knocked off the £1,250 they could have a £2,000 pension if they stayed on as voting peers.
I have the greatest regard and admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for

Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is the great champion of the under-dog and the under-privileged. But he suggests that their Lordships should work for the miserly sum of £2,000 and should not have the opportunity of relinquishing this arduous job at 72. Another Amendment suggests that the age should be 65. The suggestion about the age of 72 is probably reasonable and more democratic. We expect industrial workers to retire at 65. It might well be reasonable for peers to retire at 72 and to give them the opportunity of relinquishing this arduous task for which they will receive only the nominal sum of £2,000.

Mr. Oscar Morton: Since the hon. Gentleman proposes to cut the remuneration to £2,000 and to allow their Lordships no expenses, does this mean that peers will not be allowed to write letters?

The Temporary Chairman: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would tell us, briefly, whether he supports the age of 65, 70, 75 or, as one Amendment suggests, 80?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I thought that I had dealt with the age of 72. I have just started on the age of 65 and was tending towards favouring that age. I thought that it would be a little hard to insist that these poor old gentlemen should have to carry on their arduous duties until 72 years of age. I was castigating, in a lighthearted way, my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, who advocates the age of 72. If dockers should have the opportunity to retire at 65, as I think they should, why not give these noble peers the opportunity to retire at 65? Why should we insist that they carry on beyond that age?
It may be difficult for peers to write at the age of 80. They may have to write letters, but they will not be constituency letters. They could write better at 65.

Mr. Heffer: To save the great embarrassment of having to decide the age limit for retirement, would it not be better not to have members of the House of Lords as all?

Mr. Lewis: If I were to develop that point, you, Sir Beresford, would rule me out of Order. I have to deal with the ages of 65, 70, 72 or 80.

Mr. James Dempsey: And 90.

Mr. Lewis: No. If my hon. Friend had been here earlier, he would have heard the Scottish peers discussed. Those poor old devils could go on to 90.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the hon. Gentleman's way out of the dilemma which the Chair has put him in to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck). Would not that satisfy him?

Mr. Lewis: No. The hon. Gentleman has come in too late—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have already explained that I could not accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford. I am not concerned with the age of 72. I have tended towards the age of 65, but I have not made up my mind. That is generally the retirement age for local government officers. If the peers are not to be paid, I may want them to stay on. Perhaps they need the 4½ guineas a day expenses.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman makes a false comparison between the possible age of retirement for peers and the age of retirement for people in various trades and professions—doctors, police, and so on. Might it not be that people who have come to the end of their working lives in some trade or industry will be entering the House of Lords to give it the benefit of their experience in their trade or industry? The hon. Gentleman is is inferring that as soon as they get there they will be axed; they will be too old.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech separately and not as an intervention in my speech. I do not know who will go into the House of Lords; perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. He may be privy to what the Leader of the Opposition proposes or he may know what the Prime Minister wants to do. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend will send people to the House of Lords at 70 years of age or that he will send people who have given a lifetime of service in the pits or the workshop. We do not know how many people will go to the House of Lords. Certainly we do not know what their age will be. Unless we know what their age will be, we shall have difficulty in deciding at what age they should retire. It would be silly to send them

there at the age of 65 and retire them at 65. If the Prime Minister decides to send them there at 72, I could not accept that. The age of 80 is probably a reasonable age at which they should retire.
I do not know which way I shall vote on this matter. Perhaps I shall not vote at all. I shall listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to see whether he can persuade me about the correct way to vote.

Dr. Bennett: One thing that has been conspicuous throughout the whole debate on the Amendments to this Clause, in this Ishmael of a Bill, is that every voice raised, even if only for a few seconds in an intervention, has been thoroughly hostile to the import of the Clause.
I am bewildered at the arbitrary age selected. The Amendments have given us a range of choice, which has been ably expounded by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). It seems to me that the only sense that could be made of this small part of a very idotic Bill would be to withdraw subsection (3), as Amendment No. 21 suggests. It is impossible to understand the intention in choosing the age of 72. To a mind that lacked the advantage of having been elevated by the past few hours of debate, it would seem incredible that anybody could say that 72 is a certain watershed in the affairs of humanity, that up to that age one is at one's highest powers, and that after it one is inevitably in decline.
That is what seems to me the import of the age given in the Bill. But the facts do not justify this. There are far more practical imputations, such as the hon. Member for West Ham, North and others have mentioned. Until the advent of the Bill, 65 had always been regarded as the age of decline, although in recent years I have noticed that in public affairs there has been a tendency to seek to extend the age before retirement was obligatory.

Mr. Nigel Birch: My hon. Friend is not quite correct. I think that Cicero maintained that old age began at 47.

Dr. Bennett: I am sure that the Committee is as willing to discuss 47 as the obligatory retirement age as it is to discuss 72. As an Upper House of placemen


could never consist of bodies less than 60 years old, they would be even more disqualified under the Bill than under some of the conditions named by the hon Member for East Ham, North.
If 65 is regarded as the retirement age of all the rest of the population, I cannot see why it should be different in this context, if a retirement age must be stated at all. When we were earlier favoured by a lightning visit from the putative parent of this Parliamentary monster, the Secretary of State for Social Services, that Pooh-Bah of the Government, it passed through my mind that perhaps by the time he and the Government had been given the chopper by an infuriated electorate he himself would be getting too near the age of 65 and would be chopped off again, before he could enjoy his retirement in another place.
I cannot see why 72 must be laid down by the Government any more than 65. The Committee will require a very clear demonstration by the Solicitor-General of some reasons, which, I suppose, must be largely biological, why 72 is so strictly relevant in this connection.
If in fact we are talking of senile dementia, which surely is the only reason why retirement is laid upon people, it must be known to the Government, as it is to any of those who have studied these matters—they have at their disposal ample medical evidence—that dementia does not set in at the same age in every individual. This is well-known. I do not look in any particular direction when I say that, for we do not need to consider this as a personal matter.
It is probably also known to the Government that there are well-marked conditions known as pre-senile dementias, in which the symptoms set in in the 30s or 40s—certainly as young as the 30s. Very marked in the processes of senile dementia are the sluggishness of association, inability to amass recent memory and above all that quality that is most vexatious in the Chamber from time to time, of a Member going on speaking and then appearing to stop so that everybody jumps up to catch the eye of the Chair, and then the Member carries on again. We have all suffered from this. Those are the chaps who need the chopper. If anybody takes the medical side of this retirement

age question seriously, which I doubt, these are the matters which should be studied.

Mr. Michael Foot: As the medical expert in the Committee, could not the hon. Gentleman suggest a remedy other than a chopper for all these diseases?

Dr. Bennett: I apologise for trampling on the finer feelings of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I should have put this a little less bluntly. I forgot that I was no longer in a seaport town.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is very sensitive on this matter since he has two elderly noblemen in his family.

Dr. Bennett: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman received a certain measure of attempted support last night and at this morning's sitting from one of them. I suppose that he takes this matter very seriously as presumably he is the cadet member of the association.
If we are considering the medical reasons—which are the only reasons we should consider in determining people's retirment at certain ages, I cannot believe that it can be done in the absence of a medical sorting-out process. To have that sorting-out process carried out at No. 10 Downing Street is a horrifying thought. Everyone in the Chamber will agree that it would be much better carried out by, perhaps, such a committee as my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and I and other hon. Members have suggested in new Clause 9. That will include various forms of experts to judge the mental qualities of candidates for the Upper House.

Mr. Birch: For the cross-benches only.

Dr. Bennett: I admit that, but perhaps the principle needs to be extended to the longitudinal benches as well. It seems that we must judge the readiness for retirement on mental grounds alone for all the peers, not only those on the cross-benches, be they devoid of political instincts——

Mr. Birch: Would my hon. Friend be willing to accept the chairmanship of such a board?

Dr. Bennett: I would not dare to put myself forward. There are others far more recently in practice dealing with the disorders of the human mind than I have been. We shall need all of them before we finish.
Having been mystified by this extraordinary feature of the Bill, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale for revealing to us for the first time in this Chamber the enlightening words in the White Paper.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons has arrived, with his hon. Friend the Member for Rother-ham (Mr. O'Malley). I am afraid that we shall now suffer a period of narcosis in the debate, resulting from the nature of the most recent entrants to the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale quoted two sentences from the White Paper which my right hon. Friend for West Flint and I, together with others, have sought to append to the Bill as a Schedule in Amendment 58. Those sentences, in paragraph 8, state:
…if members were to be paid …it would certainly be wrong for membership to carry with it the right to be paid for the remainder of a life-time. It is therefore proposed that after a suitable date a peer who had reached the age of 72 at the end of one parliament should be precluded from voting in the next.
There can be no other possible reason for this otherwise inexplicable age of 72. It is another example of the extraordinary deviousness with which this Bill has been introduced into the Committee and I should like to vote at least for the exclusion of this subsection.

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) opened this debate and reminded the Committee of the considerable number of distinguished men in public life who have given service in many spheres. He produced a formidable and unchallengeable list of these as grounds for his proposal to delete the subsection. The Committee will agree that there are many instances which leap to mind and support that part of my hon. Friend's argument. I well remember that when I was called to the Bar Mr. Justice Avory was sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal and Lord Dunedin was in the House of Lords. There

are many instances that come to mind of most distinguished service given by men of extraordinary age.
My hon. Friend put forward as a possibility, and here there were perhaps greater doubts in the minds of many of us, a committee, set up to decide when people were getting a bit old, to decide who is fit and who is not. It would be rather an invidious type of inquiry. Consideration has been given to the number of instances of distinguished people performing services of great importance in old age. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked why we should think in terms of imposing an age limit for the Upper House when no such limit is propounded as being desirable in the Commons.
It is an important factor of life in the House of Commons that there is the need to seek re-adoption and re-election, which provides a check not present in another place. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), if I may say this affectionately to him, appeared to be more concerned with unravelling what he could of the history of this matter and its origins than in putting forward arguments for and against the age of 72.
For many of the years that I have had the privilege of knowing him, my hon. Friend has been inclined to be more interested in the processes of argument than in their outcome. What I invite him to do is to consider on its merits the appropriateness of the age set out in the Bill. I have not heard why we should regard any other age as more appropriate or desirable. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that there might be a connection between the provisions of subsections (3) and (4). He appeared to take the view that there could be an extension applied by virtue of subsection (4) to a peer who had attained the age of 72 before the dissolution of the previous Parliament. My understanding is that subsection (4) cannot be used to admit a peer over the retiring age, once this Measure is in force.

Mr. Ridley: How do the Government intend to give effect to the passage in the White Paper which says that the very valuable knowledge and experience of the over 72's will be retained when the Measure becomes law by their being allowed to continue as voting peers?

The Solicitor-General: No resort can be had to this subsection in that connection. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) showed in his contribution a welcome readiness to consider the arguments, and I hope that he will come to the conclusion that we have arrived at the age limit which is desirable in all the circumstances. There are a whole host of matters to be borne in mind in determining the best retiring age.
It was most natural that the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) should place emphasis upon biological and medical aspects, because we all know of his distinction and ability in that direction. It is understandable that factors of that kind should weigh in his mind—other factors weighed in other minds. In arriving at the content of the Clause, particularly subsection (3), we have had regard to a very large number of what we believe to be relevant factors and circumstances.

Mr. Birch: The Solicitor-General is giving rather a different answer from the one he gave me this morning. He said that the age of 72 was determined by various guesses and calculations about how many Members there would be in another place if the Bill became law. He has not mentioned that this time.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly right and I do not resile at all from what I said then. There was an actuarial element in this work. A lot of relevant matters are brought into consideration.

Dr. Bennett: Including paragraph 44 of the White Paper?

The Solicitor-General: All factors were taken into account. I have ventured to make these observations about the contributions to the debate on this Amendment.
I have endeavoured to deal with the points which have been made. The effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford would be to remove altogether the requirement that, on a date to be prescribed by Order in Council, a voting peer should retire at the end of the Parliament in which he reaches the age of 72. As the Committee wi11 be well aware, the actual age at which a peer retires may be higher if

he reaches the age of 72 shortly after the beginning of a Parliament.
I appreciate that the requirement may be criticised on the ground that many peers will still be active and well able to perform the duties of voting peers for some time after they have reached the age of 72, and on the ground that there is no similar requirement for Members of the House of Commons.

An Hon. Member: Or judges.

The Solicitor-General: There are, however, in' the Government's view two reasons for imposing an age of retirement. In the first place, if the size of the voting House is to remain stable a sufficient number of Members must retire at the end of each Parliament to make room for new creations needed to adjust the party balance. This is the kind of factor to which I referred earlier in the observations to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) was good enough to refer. Without a retiring age, it would be necessary to require Members to seek renomination at the beginning of each Parliament.
The choice of any particular age of retirement must be arbitrary, but, as I have told the Committee, careful studies have satisfied us that 72 is the highest age which would produce a sufficient number of retirements in most foreseeable circumstances.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to publish the statistics on which these sums have been worked out. Obviously the life table is increasing fairly rapidly and, therefore, in 20 years' time presumably the retirement age will have to be brought down to balance the topping up of the other place. Perhaps he can give us some figures on this.

The Solicitor-General: What I can say is that a whole number of variables have had to be regarded in these calculations. There had to be a calculation, on what can be said to be an arbitrary basis, of the foreseen life of Parliament, and matters of that kind. I am asking the Committee to accept the assurance that all these factors, so far as they were regarded as being relevant, have been taken into account.

Mr. Onslow: The Solicitor-General tells us that many factors have been taken into account. Will he tell us which was regarded as the most important? Is not it evident that it was the need to find some point of age at which to cull the herd and that this was arbitrarily chosen to be 72?

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am disinclined to indicate which, among a large number of factors, was regarded as the most important.
I ask the Committee to consider further the choice that is presented by one of the Amendments on the Order Paper now being discussed, between the ages of 72 and 70. The effect of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne would be to require voting peers to retire at the end of a Parliament in which they reached the age not of 72, but of 70. The White Paper took account of the fact, and the Government very well recognises, that the choice of a particular retiring age is necessarily a matter of difficult judgment.
The intention is to set an age which will not exclude a large number of active and potentially valuable Members but will at the same time secure a sufficient turnover in membership to provide the necessary number of vacancies at a change of Government. Mathematical studies have suggested that 72 is the best age limit to achieve both purposes in most foreseeable circumstances. These are the considerations which have led me to invite the Committee to resist the Amendments which have been tabled.

Mr. Maude: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, would he answer this question? Is not it completely illogical that under Clause 4 a Government Minister can go on sitting after the age of 72 but a Member of the Opposition Front Bench in another place cannot?

Mr. Onslow: The Solicitor-General invited us to consider the case on its merits and then did his best to explain that it had no merits at all, so I suppose we have some cause to be grateful for the intervention of the Government Front Bench in the debate. All the same, I doubt if the Committee as a whole will have altered its view that the age limit provision contained in subsection (3), is

as objectionable as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) has seen it to be. There is nothing particularly odd about that because I find most of the Bill objectionable in many respects; but I find this provision particularly undesirable because it smacks of that curse of the modern age, planned obsolescence. I find the idea that men and machines exist only to be thrown on the scrap heap when it is desired to produce something to replace them a very uncivilised notion. The age limit of 72, is indiscriminate, rigid and arbitrary, and any limit, even if it be 80, must suffer the same faults. The Solicitor-General may claim that this limit is carefully and mathematically calculated to allow the men of value, or most of them, to remain. But if its effect is to cut out one man of value then it must stand condemned by that fact alone.
I see that the Government are in a tremendous difficulty and I would like to try to help them with this, as would the whole Committee. It is clear that some of the reasons that were advanced earlier in our debate, as to the choice of this particular figure of 72, do not stand the scrutiny of debate. The idea of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it depended on the temperature of the bath that the Lord President of the Council, or whoever it was, was taking when he first thought of it we can discard.

Mr. Heffer: No.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman says, no, but I am prepared to believe—[Interruption.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Walton who said that, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The hon. Member for Walton being generous as he always is, accepted that that might have been the reason.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for correcting me. He has evidently not lost his capacity to amass recent memory and other things with it.
I am more attracted by the idea that somewhere in the Government's subconscious—that vast recess—there is a figure of 72 which has leapt to their mind as


being about the minimum general I.Q. I think that this is the sort of thought association process—[Interruption.] I apologise if I have offended the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). It is entirely unintentional. What he should take offence at is the concept embodied in the subsection that men over 72 are incapable of rational thought or valuable contribution to public service. If I am spared to reach the right hon. Gentleman's age I will certainly bear in mind his admirable example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) said that there was a case not for some arbitrary test of Anno Domini but for a test of capacity. When a member of the Upper House is obviously "ga-ga", whatever age he may be, it would seem to be in the public interest that there should be some means of getting rid of him. I do not suggest precisely how his degree of senility should be established. To take a random example, if a man advocated the belief that he could sink the Russian Fleet in the Mediterranean in five minutes, we might tend to question his wisdom:. or if he showed credulous belief in promises made not to increase taxation, not to take powers to control wages by law, not to reintroduce prescription charges or offers of half pay on retirement, we might tend to think that he was losing his marbles.

Mr. John Lee: Would not the problem be solved easily by orders under the Medical Health Act? Surely there is no need for any particular age.

Mr. Onslow: I am certain that a procedure of that kind would appeal to the hon. Gentleman's essentially orderly, clinical and callous mind. I should not care to advocate that procedure in this case, because it would be a grave infringement of the dignity of the gentlemen whom we will be drafting into the other place. We still face this question—how can we get rid of voting peers when they have outlived their usefulness, when they have gone "ga-ga" or whatever it may be? The Government's answer is when they reach 72, whether they have been mad for years before or not. So long as they have turned up regularly, sheer imbecility will not incapacitate them.

Mr. Roebuck: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone wanted to go to the other place under these new provisions, that of itself would be prima facie evidence of something being wrong with him?

Mr. Onslow: I have heard the same comment advanced against anyone who is mad enough to seek to come here. But I do not wish to see imposed upon members of the other House, nor on Members of the House of Commons, a public test in this context, because it is undignified.
The Solicitor-General maintains that he must have his cull to enable the numbers in the herd to remain stable. So I suggest he has another way in which this can be achieved, which is neither as arbitrary as a fixed age limit, at whatever point it may be set, nor as undignified as the certificate of continued mental competence which might be involved if the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) had his way. We need a sort of Chiltern Hundreds. I advance this briefly. I will not go into detail. But here is a solution which is worthy of consideration. There is no way out of the other House except by failing to attend or reaching the age of 72. The Home Secretary admitted this last night. If we could introduce a sort of Chiltern Hundreds we could solve the problem.
I recommend the Government to consider the creation of a sinecure post to which Members on the voting list of the upper House could be appointed when it was agreed by those appointing them that they had outlived their usefulness. I do not wish to create any new public office, so I suggest this sinecure post should be that of Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Indeed, anybody who was prepared to accept that particular office might well stand self-condemned of imbecility.
I do not wish to detain the Committee beyond that brief analysis of the problem as I see it.

[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a word with some of his legal friends to see whether they could put down a suitable Amendment on that, because I am sure that my hon. Friends would support it.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has wandered far enough away from the Amendment already.

Mr. Onslow: My ideas are not copyright. The hon. Member for West Ham, North has a tremendous capacity in these matters. I leave it to him. I am not greedy. Let him have the credit if he can get it.
I suggest that if the Government need some way to get rid of unwanted voting peers, they should find a better way than the one they now propose.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Earl of Dalkeith: (seated and covered): On a point of order. I wonder whether you can help me, Mr. Irving. I have an Amendment down, but I have deliberately not tried to catch your eye in the earlier stages of the debate because it was pointless my speaking and wasting the time of the Committee until I heard whether the Government would accept Amendment No. 21. Had the Government accepted Amendment No. 21, clearly Amendment No. 205 would have been pointless. It seems rather unfortunate that I should have been denied the opportunity of speaking to an Amendment which has been selected for discussion due to this unfortunate Closure Motion.

The Chairman: I really cannot help the noble Lord.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (seated and covered): On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I must complete the Tellers before I can hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis (seated and covered:) Whilst appreciating that the Chair has sole right to decide whether to move the Closure, it has also, for a considerable time, given preference to Privy Councillors. As the only right hon. Member who was able to speak from experience on this Amendment tried to catch your eye——

The Chairman: Order. I must complete the Question.

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (seated and covered): I was saying that the only right hon. Member present who tried to catch your eye was my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). It has been the custom for a long time for Privy Councillors to be called. My right hon. Friend was personally interested in this proposal both by age and experience. Would it not have been better had he been allowed to make his first contribution?

The Chairman: I cannot help the hon. Member. I have accepted the Closure and I must proceed with the Division.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) (seated and covered): On a point of order. I am a little concerned that the Chair should understand that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was speaking from the wrong side of the Committee. Will you, Mr. Irving, make certain that the name is right and that we do not get the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) speaking from this side?

The Chairman: I understand the hon. Member's concern.

The Committee having divided—Ayes 188, Noes 107.

Division No. 97.1
AYES
16.58 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Binns, John
Carmichael, Neil


Alldritt, Walter
Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Blackburn, F.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter
Bradley, Tom
Chapman, Donald


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brooks, Edwin
Concannon, J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Baxter, William
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &F'bury)
Crawshaw, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Bence, Cyril
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan Rt. Hn. James
Cullen, Mrs. Alice




Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Rt Hn. Harold (Leek)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Dunn James A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E.


Ellis, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ennals, David
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm Yardley.)
Lubbock, Eric
Snow, Julian


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Sprigg8, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir-Eric (lslington, E.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tuck, Raphael


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wallace, George


Greenwood. Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gregory, Arnold
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Whitaker, Ben


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. (Llanelly)
Moonman, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold
Winnick, David


Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Henig, Stanley
Oram, Albert E.



Herbison. Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Walter Harrison.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston, Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Loveys, W. H.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Booth, Albert
Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Neave, Airey


Brewis, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orme, Stanley


Clegg, Walter
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Costain, A. P.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Crouch, David
Heffer, Eric s.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Currie, G. B. H.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pardoe, John


Dance, James
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pym, Francis


Dean, Paul
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dickens, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden. Rt. Hn. James


Dodds-Parker Douglas
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fortescue, Tim
Lee, John (Reading)
Roebuck, Roy







Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sheldon, Robert
Tomney, Frank
Woodnutt, Mark


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wright, Esmond


Silvester, Frederick
Waddington, David
Wylie, N. R.


Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L' mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


Smith, John (London &W'minster)
Ward, Dame Irene



Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Angus Maude and


Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. John Biggs-Davison


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 88, Noes 186.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[7.7 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hay, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridsdale, Julian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hefter, Eric S.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roebuck, Roy


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hooson, Emlyn
Scott-Hopkins, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Body, Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silvester, Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Brewis, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John (London & Westminster)


Costain, A. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Dickens, James
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Newens, Stan
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fortescue, Tim
Nott, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Orme, Stanley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Pardoe, John
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Gower, Raymond
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Raphael Tuck and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. William Hamilton.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gardner, Tony


Alldritt, Walter
Dalyell, Tam
Ginshurg, David


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Archer, Peter
Davidson, James (A berdeenshire, W.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gregory, Arnold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Baxter, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Beaney, Alan
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bence, Cyril
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dewar, Donald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Binns, John
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Blackburn, F.
Dunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brooks, Edwin
Eadie, Alex
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John
Henig, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
English, Michael
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ennals, David
Hooley, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Chapman, Donald
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, James


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Hunter, Adam


Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Freeson, Reginald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)




Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Small, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moonman, Eric
Snow, Julian


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Judd, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Kenyon, Clifford
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oram, Albert E.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne valley)


Lubbock, Eric
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Wallace, George


McCann, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Macdonald, A. H.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Pentland, Norman
Whitaker Ben


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackie, John
Randall, Harry
Wilkins, W. A.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, 8.)
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, J .P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Manuel, Archie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woof, Robert


Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, E.



Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marsh, Rt, Hn. Richard
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. J. D. Concannon


Millan, Bruce

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a particular pleasure to be called to speak on the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. This is a valuable part of the analysis of the provisions of the Bill in Committee. It is the only opportunity that we have to consider the Clause as a whole. It gives us the opportunity to consider it in the light of the failure of the efforts made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to amend it.
The main purpose of the Clause is to provide the machinery for the operation of the system of paid voting peers, and although the machinery is a little cumbrous I need not waste time in arguing whether it is the right machinery. My objection is to the whole process by which we lose the present system of the peer attending on a Writ of Summons and exercising the rights that peers so summoned have exercised for centuries.
The machinery aspect of the matter is not of great importance, although it is interesting to note as an indication of the whole rather squalid atmosphere in which the new Upper Chamber will operate. The most important practical provision is that which my hon. Friends and I—and I use the term "hon. Friends" in the broadest sense, to include hon. Members

on both sides of the Committee; I hope that the friendship may continue—have sought to amend, namely, the age limit which, unfortunately, is still in the Clause. In every sense this is wrong.
First, it is of the nature of a second Chamber that it should contain at any rate a number of people of some age-venerable, or perhaps patriarchal figures. We can go back to the Roman Senate, when such members were particularly distinguished by their long white beards. That was in an era, unlike the present, when the wearing of a beard was an indication of some age. In this respect things have changed.
A second Chamber whose job is to review and to consider the possible impetuous action of the Lower House—to reconsider and restrain—is one of the places in which, even in this epoch, age is an asset rather than a liability.
It is a great mistake, as the Government have done, to bring into the question of the composition of the Upper Chamber ideas which are perfectly relevant in other spheres. No one objects to age limits, perhaps of a severe character, in the Armed Forces. There, an element of physical agility is required which, alas, departs as age grows. But one thing which is not required in the Upper House is physical agility. I must accept, of course, that, as the voting peers' main


duty is to vote, they must be able to get through the Lobbies, but that is a physical attainment which the achievements of modern science allow many people to retain to an advanced age.
One must consider also the psychology of this. People appointed to the Upper House will be, mainly, people with the main achievements of their lives behind them. It will become a considerable part of their activities. Indeed, if it does not, as the next Clause provides, they will be out on their necks. At that sort of age, to take a man who is perfectly fit to do this job and throw him out because of the double accident of the date of his birthday and the date of a General Election seems unnecessarily harsh and some-think likely to disturb and make unnecessarily unhappy membership of the new Upper House.
I will not weary the Committee with innumerable examples of people of far greater age than this who have performed and are performing functions of the utmost difficulty and importance. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is not in his place, which is surprising, since his attendance of this Chamber is among the very best of us. I always find the obvious vigour, mental and physical, of the right hon. Member at his age one of the most encouraging and cheering things to be seen in this Chamber.
Many rulers and heads of State of the greatest nations in the world are beyond this age. Whether one approves of their policies, whether they were any better when they were younger, it would be indelicate to speculate, but there they are—chosen by their nations to perform functions of a strenuous nature and a high responsibility.
We should therefore be extraordinarily wasteful if we deliberately discarded people who have acquired a certain knowledge of the working of an Upper Chamber simply because they have reached this age. I would stress the acquiring of the technique. It is one of the objections to this system that most appointments will be made at ages well above those at which, generally, a hereditary peer succeeds to his peerage. A certain amount of time is moreover needed for a man to accustom himself to

life in the Upper Chamber before he reaches his maximum usefulness. I hope that I do not tread on any corns when I say that few hon. Members are really effective until they have been here for a number of years, and that will certainly be true in another place.
Because of the nature of this system, appointments will be made at some substantial age and added to that will be the period needed for the man appointed to accustom himself to his difficulties. When he is just reaching his maximum efficiency, he will be withdrawn forcibly from membership.
I have a great respect, going back a long time, for the Solicitor-General and the fact that so good an advocate could not make a better case on the Amendment is perhaps the strongest possible evidence that there is no case to be made. There were statistical calculations—the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give himself enough time to describe them to us—which suggested that 72 was right. But that is not good enough. We are dealing with human beings who will, as many of us think, have been placed, as a result of the Bill, in a position of some difficulty and who, we must assume, have public spiritedly taken up a somewhat unattractive public office. They are then to be treated in this way, simply because the Solicitor-General has certain statistical calculations which he is either unwilling or—dare I suggest it?—unable to demonstrate to the Committee.
If I am wrong, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able—at least so long as the Deputy Chief Whip stays away—to prove me wrong by demonstrating the calculations. At the moment, I simply do not believe them. I believe that they have been taken, simply by analogy, from other occupations, from the age limit, for example, applied to county court judges. But the function of a legislalator in the Upper House is quite different. It is a function in which experience is of great value and which does not, on the whole, require dynamic and driving executive energy. It is essentially an attitude which demands consideration and criticism of other people's work.
Therefore, this is a considerable blemish on the Bill. That is saying something. The Bill is such a blot that to constitute a visible blemish a fault must


be substantial. I hope that, before we part with the Clause, we shall have from the Government not merely a general argument about age limits or a reference to the difficulty of doing without them, but a reasoned argument for taking an age limit which, in the light of the necessities of the job, appears to be unnecessarily low.
If it is unnecessarily low, we shall waste people just when they have acquired a real knoweldge of their functions and we will probably inflict a good deal of harm on them. For people of these ages, enforced retirement from active occupation is one of the most dangerous and harmful things which one can do. Most of us have known men who have appeared to be in full physical vigour while discharging hard and strenuous tasks. Some arbitrary retirement rule like those which, despite the efforts of some of us, still prevail in some parts of the Civil Service, has come down and stopped such a man in his tracks. One knows of cases—I say this with great seriousness, thinking of men whom I have known and have an affection for—of men whose death has followed in a few months although, while at the job, they appeared fit and working well.
I attach some importance to this. We are dealing with people for whom this will become a major occupation, who will be a little old to start another. Quite arbitrarily to say, "Sorry, you are doing the job splendidly and you have mastered it, but the juxtaposition of the date of a Parliamentary election and your 72nd birthday means that you must go", is quite the worst thing to do.
I have no particular affection, as I have made clear before, for this scheme. I do not believe that, if it is passed—that is a matter on which we may all speculate—it will be other than a ghastly flop. But it is a little foolish of the Government to add this unnecessary handicap to it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: The Solicitor-General, when he replied to the debate on the previous Amendments, stated that he was giving assurances to the Committee about the way in which the age of 72 had been selected and which he felt he could defend. I do not believe that my hon. and learned Friend can ever be in a position to give assurances of that kind.
What is interesting about this Clause is that we have the third of the very interesting figures on which the White Paper and, by implication, the Bill are based. The four figures are the figures for one-third of the attendance, the age of 72, the number in the Chamber, which has been picked at 230, and the salary which, for argument's sake, we shall call £2,000 a year. They are all arbitrary figures, but they are related to each other. As one increases the attendance, so it has an effect on the number required in the Chamber. Therefore, however good the examination of the Solicitor-General, he cannot prove that he has selected the best combination of all these figures. We can all pick a different combination and argue with as great a precision as any he can hope to achieve, although having picked two of them the other two will be largely determined by what we have done with the first two.
If, for example, we decided on an attendance figure lower than one-third, we know that we would need a larger Chamber. If we replaced one-third by by one-quarter, we know that we would need a larger Chamber. If we decided that the salary needed to be decreased, we know that we would need a larger Chamber. If, instead of picking 72 as the age limit, we decided to increase it, we know that we would need a larger Chamber. Therefore, we have four separate figures related to each other, and we can devise a workable House in a vast number of ways by choosing different figures and relating them one to another.
The Solicitor-General has said that he has chosen the ideal relationship of attendance, age, size of Chamber and, by implication, salary. He says that this is the one perfect solution. Anybody who has anything to do with this kind of problem knows perfectly well that the unique solution does not exist. There is a whole range of solutions. If the Committee were to exercise its functions properly, it should have detailed records about how all these factors were taken into account and should decide whether the solution chosen by the Solicitor-General is one of the better or worse solutions, because there is a large number of such models.
We have been kept in the dark on a very important constitutional matter. The number in the Chamber, the attendance, the age limit and the salary have been


decided without the Committee knowing the nature of that decision. This is probably one of the most appalling indictments of the way in which this bargain was compacted: we are not in a position to criticise what must, by its nature, be an arbitrary decision. What we need to know is what examination the Opposition made. If they were privy to this scheme and knew full well the range of figures which would need to be employed, did they examine all the possibilities? Is it coincidental that they come to the same unique best solution?
We have not had an examination of these various factors, but one or two people got together and made their choice. They have not presented it to the various groups because so many choices are available. What is more likely to have happened is that the choice was pre-empted. One of the obvious choices for such pre-emption is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Another is the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). The whole thing reeks of this kind of examination by limited numbers of people on matters which can have great consequences.
Although I am a great admirer of the intellects of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, it is an arguable proposition that extreme cleverness and constitution-making do not go together very well. One of the consequences of their attempts has been the Bill.
Paragraph 44 of the White Paper dealing with age states:
In the long term, however, it would be wrong for a working legislative chamber to contain an indefinite number of members, however distinguished, who were well beyond the normal age of retirement from active life: and if members were to be paid it would certainly be wrong for membership to carry with it the right to be paid for the remainder of a life-time.
The figure of 72, calculated, as it has been, with one eye on the mortality rates, had to take into account what must have previously been determined, namely, the size of the Chamber, the number of attendances and the salary in order to create the Upper House organisation which was in view.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend, I am sure rightly, castigated the Secretary for Social Services and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). He went on to say that the White Paper points out that it would be wrong to give a State pension for life irrespective. He should also point out that in all probability a third person should be added to the other two, namely, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who will get a pension for life, come what may. Probably he is also very interested in this Bill.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. It is out of order to discuss that on this Clause.

Mr. Sheldon: In that case, I will not pursue the point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Why is it disorderly? It is a statement of fact. The Lord Chancellor will get a pension for life. Does the Attorney-General deny it?

Mr. Sheldon: The age of 72 was calculated with an eye on the mortality rates and in connection with the other three figures.
The further factor here was the topping up process by means of which gaps in the membership of the House of Lords were made good as they died, retired, or grew disinterested and so failed to meet the minimum attendance required. Once again we come to the implicit acceptance of payment throughout the whole White Paper and throughout the Bill, because compulsory retirement would not be necessary if it were not for the pay position. There would be no need to force people to retire, whether at 72 or any other age, if there were no pay to be given to them. Because of the element of pay we see the final result both in the White Paper and in the legislation.
I suppose one could argue that when a man is at his peak one could deduce certain age brackets between which people should be ideally recruited for the House of Lords and certain age levels at which they should retire. I started to look at this from a quite different viewpoint. I was not thinking of the House of Lords as it is, but the House of Lords as I regard its most important functions. When I think of the age of retirement in the House of Lords I am forced to


decide for myself, as I think the Committee must decide, what are its essential functions. The functions which might be suitable for people of one age may not be suitable for people of another.
We have the White Paper statement on functions in paragraph 8:
Apart: from providing the supreme court of appeal, the House of Lords at present performs the following main functions:

(a) the provision of a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest;
(b) the revision of public bills brought from the House of Commons;
(c) the initiation of public legislation, including; in particular those government bills which are less controversial in party political terms and private members' bills;
(d) the consideration of subordinate legislation;
(e) the scrutiny of the activities of the executive; and
(f) the scrutiny of private legislation."


This is probably elaborating too much. I would simplify the main functions of the House of Lords to see what kind of people and what kind of maturity of experience they have and the maximum age at which these people should be there by looking at the main functions. The first is that of delay, which is the subject of later Amendments, and the second is the checking of legislation. These are the most important functions we should be considering in deciding the age of people in the Upper House.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): This Clause is about voting declarations. I find it difficult to relate what the hon. Member is saying to the Clause.

Mr. Sheldon: I was on the maximum age of retirement while speaking on the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Until about two minutes ago the hon. Member was in order, but when he begins to get away from the question of age he is going into detail about matters which are not in order in discussing the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Sheldon: I am trying to argue whether the maximum age of 72 is correct or not. To do that we have to see what the person is actually doing.

The Chairman: So far, so good. The hon. Member went on to elaborate in

detail a number of functions. That is beyond the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Sheldon: I shall seek to show the work that a member of the House of Lords will do and to argue whether the maximum age of 72 is the right one for the work he does. The work he does, apart from delay, which obviously is better left to subsequent Clauses, is that of checking. That is the real work and the only valid work, the checking of our legislation, because of the frequent inadequate consideration which we give to Bills. We know that for various political reasons we do not give Bills sufficient examination. For various political reasons we deliberately try to avoid doing it. The House of Lords has a function in checking the actual legislation. It is more of a technical kind of checking, although wide experience comes in. So one needs people of mature judgment.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting away from the question of age.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: I am trying to show that the age of 72 is of some value for that kind of mature examination.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member must be aware that if he goes to the other place he can see their Lordships initiating legislation. It is not just a revising Chamber. Many Lords have broad knowledge and initiate legislation.

Mr. Sheldon: They initiate legislation, question the Executive, and act as a forum. I find these attributes fairly trivial. We ourselves may feel inadequate as a forum compared with television.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Sheldon: I was led astray by the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). The age of the person engaged in checking legislation is of great importance. For that we need men of some maturity. If we were to chop people off at a time when their maturity might be more valuable, that clearly would be harmful. I present this argument in order to demolish it. I do not believe that this kind of maturity is as essential as the more technical expertise which is required. Hence the reason for my Amendment to which, unfortunately, I was not able to speak


because of the action of the Government Chief Whip. This precisely was the point of that Amendment.
I chose a lower age, 70 rather than 72, because I thought what was required was not so much extreme maturity of judgment as technical knowledge to overcome some of the difficulties we have in this House because of hurried legislation. It is not because we cannot produce good legislation but because of the political problems which arise. We want people to do that job and the ideal age bracket for that type of job——

The Chairman: Order. The rules about the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, do not allow the hon. Member to make substitutions in the terms of the Clause, but to argue on what is in the Clause.

Mr. Sheldon: You are absolutely right, Mr. Irving. I content myself with pointing out that the age limits should be lower for the situation I envisage. There is an advantage in having a lower age limit than was suggested by some hon. Members opposite.
We tend to think of the Lords as a second-rate House of Commons. It is not. It is a different body, doing a different job. We must not generalise from our experience here. There must be a maximum age for retirement, if only to achieve a balance in the people available for the change, whether it comes sessionally, as I would wish, or at the end of each Parliament, as the Government so decide. This is important, otherwise we shall have to rely on death alone to produce changes. We may have different views about the optimum age of those in the Lords, but nobody would argue that if the top limit were left alone we should not end up with a greater number of older people making less of a contribution than we would wish.
The anology with the House of Commons does not hold good. We are responsible to the electorate. If we fail the electorate, we are made aware of it and we have to accept the decision of the electorate. There is no power to control the decisions of the Lords in the way that the electorate controls us.

Mr. Ian Gilmoor: I agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Seldon) that to reach an

informed and sensible decision on the Clause we should have been supplied with detailed evidence and models as to the optimum age. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's belief that there should be an age limit at all. In his breakfast speech this morning—his least disagreeable speech of the morning—the Secretary of State for the Home Department quoted the Scriptures and said that the whole essence of the Bill lay in its spirit and not in its letter. That was an artificial, false and rather embarrasing pronouncement.

Mr. Alison: That quotation was taken from the canonical Scriptures and nothing could have been more firmly embedded in cold print than the words which the right hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend is right. As so often on the Bill, the Home Secretary was arguing against himself. Taking the Home Secretary's words at their face value, as I suppose we were meant to do, what could be more involved with the letter rather than the spirit than this Clause? If we were to leave matters to the spirit, we should allow peers to retire when they felt like it or when they felt that their usefulness had drawn to a close. We should not prescribe a rigid voting age at a totally arbitrary figure.
The Solicitor-General, in a very cursory and inadequate reply to the last Amendment, said that it was all right for the House of Commons not to have an age limit because we were subject to the whims and wishes of the electorate but the Lords was not. The hon. and learned Gentleman ignored the fact that the Lords is the place to which Members of the House of Commons retire. Members of the House of Lords do not retire here. Therefore, to have an age limit in the Lords but not here is the wrong way round. A large proportion of those who have been ennobled in this century came from the House of Commons. This House is the main road to the Lords. People naturally go to the Lords after they have served here for a long time. It is ridiculous to have an age limit in the place to which people retire but not one in the place from which they retire.
As to the arbitrary figure of 72, I think that the bath temperature figure has the most plausibility. The Solicitor-General said nothing to dispute it. It was purely on his say-so that we were told that 72


was the best age. He made no attempt to deal with the legal expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), who pointed out that some people at certain ages have when they have risen to their feet, paused and nothing has come out. My hon. Friend said that this might be taken to be a sign of old age and that the Government may have had this in mind.
This is not a sign of old age. There was a famous occasion in the Lords when Lord Waverley, better known as Sir John Andersen, who often paused for a long time in his speeches, paused for so long that a new peer who wanted to make his maiden speech thought that Lord Waverley had finished; whereupon the new peer rose to his feet and began his maiden speech. Lord Waverley thought that he was being interrupted, so he allowed the speech to continue. It was a long time before it became clear exactly who was interrupting whom. This phenomenon has nothing to do with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham called senile dementia. It can happen at any age. Lord Waverley was not senile.
I agree to a large extent with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that the question of age is closely related to the functions which the Lords will perform, but I gathered from your interventions, Mr. Irving, that you did not share this view.

The Chairman: The Chair did not express a view about the subject matter of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It merely indicated that the move in that direction would be out of order.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Gilmour: I was about to point out that the part of paragraph 8 of the White Paper which the hon. Gentleman did not read says, towards the end:
In making the present proposals, the Government has assumed that the functions of the House will remain broadly those set out above, but it has borne in mind that they might be extended and developed later.
It seems to me that those functions were eminently suited to people aged 72 and over. I suppose that it is too late to move a manuscript Amendment now, but I feel that that could have been changed.
The real point of the Clause is the topping up about which the hon. Member

for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke earlier. Its point is to speed up the turnover of patronage, to ensure that people do not go on receiving their payments for too long. I do not mean "payment" necessarily in the pecuniary sense, although I think that that will follow. What I mean is the reward, the patronage. The Clause is designed to see that peers do not outstay their welcome, and that there is a big enough turnover to ensure that the Front Benches have adequate supplies of patronage.
Because no case has been made out for any age limit, and certainly not for the arbitrary limit chosen, I oppose the Clause.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In discussing the Question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill, we return to the problem of the age limit of 72, which has evidently been plucked out of the air as the age at which their noble Lords should lose their voting powers. We cannot argue the merits or demerits of a higher or lower age, because that matter has been decided, but we can ask the Government to tell us how they decided on the age of 72. We still have no idea why a man aged 71½, who is doing his duty well as a voting peer and is being paid for it, will suddenly cease to be able to vote when he reaches the age of 72.
I interrupted when the payments of pensions and the like were being explained. I said that the Lord Chancellor gets a pension for life as soon as he takes on the job, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, said, "Disorderly." Why? If the Lord Chancellor can get paid, whatever his age, and get a pension——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's statement is not related to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill ".

Mr. Lewis: I was going to say that the Lord Chancellor, because he is the Lord Chancellor, would be able to continue to vote on becoming 72, and he would therefore be able to draw his salary. I am trying to discover why there should be differential between an ordinary noble Lord and a noble Lord who happens to be for the time being the Lord Chancellor. Any other Minister is in a similar


position to the Lord Chancellor, but I have chosen to speak of him because he gets a pension for life. When an ordinary noble Lord who has been doing his duty reaches the age of 72, he loses not only his fee or salary but any chance of a pension.

The Chairman: Order. There is nothing in the Clause relating to fees, salaries or pensions. It is concerned with voting declarations and age.

Mr. Lewis: We have been through this before, Mr. Irving.
The White Paper says that there may be payment at some time. The Clause therefore says that once a peer ceases to be a voting peer, on reaching the age of 72, payment will cease. I cannot see what object there then is for him to be there. I assume that he would be dismissed. Would he cease to be a peer? Would he go on to a lifetime pension on a pro rata basis with the Lord Chancellor? The Clause does not make it clear. Such a man would have ceased to be a voting peer not because he was incapable, not because he had not been doing his duty, and not because he had not been very active. He might well have been the most active Member of another place. He might well have been doing his duty right up until his 72nd birthday, and then, as they say, bingo—finish. Under subsection (3) he must immediately cease to be a voting peer.
The White Paper states definitely that there will be a differentiation between voting and non-voting peers, and the object of the Clause is to make that differentiation. What difference is there between voting and non-voting peers, unless a payment will be made? The Government have admitted that it will. There should be a safeguard for those peers who will cease to be voting peers on becoming 72. They should receive some recompense.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is introducing the question of what he calls recompense. It is not appropriate in discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lewis: The Clause says:
… shall not be deposited by a peer who attained the age of seventry-two years before the dissolution of the last previous Parliament.

I repeat: why 72? How was that age decided upon? I could have understood the choice of 65, because that bears a relationship to the general rule on retirement. If the Clause had laid down 72, but added: "… provided the noble peer could not prove himself able to carry out the onerous duties ", I could have understood it. But we have had no information on how 72 was arrived at.
The Clause does not say whether the limit applies to Ministers. Will Ministers in the House of Lords cease to be voting peers at 72? Presumably, a Minister will hand in notification that he is going to cease to be a voting peer. Does he then cease to be a Minister as well? Does the Prime Minister have to find new Ministers as well as new voting peers?

Mr. Roebuck: I do not think that my hon. Friend need be too worried. There are always plenty of volunteers to fill Ministerial appointments. Who knows but that in any difficulty he himself might volunteer for such a rôle.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is always most helpful and encourages me to reply. Of course it might well be—and I emphasise the "might" rather than the "well be"—that I could be involved, but I doubt it. In the first place, I am not yet 72. Nevertheless, this provision would preclude a number of hon. Members of this House from going to another place. A number of hon. Members approaching 70 could find themselves in the House of Lords for a year or so and then, on reaching the age of 72, ceasing to be voting peers and, in effect, ceasing to be peers.
I cannot think that this is fair. A number of hon. Members are anxious to go to the other place. Many of them are aged about 70 or 71. They may feel that this Clause will restrict them somewhat in the knowledge that, if they get there at 70, they can only remain voting peers for two years. This will not be helpful to the Government and I ask my hon. and learned Friend for a really good reason as to why the Government have chosen the age of 72.

Clause 3(4) says:

"A voting declaration in respect of a Parliament shall not be deposited by any peer after the end of the period of one month from the issue of the writ summoning him


to attend the House in that Parliament, or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow."

What does it mean? I do not understand it. Does it mean not allowing a writ of summons to be used to preclude someone from going to the other place? The Clause has five subsections and none has been adequately explained. I hoped that my hon. and learned Friend would already have explained why we should support the Clause, but we have had no information either from him—and I do not blame him so much because he has been active in this Committee—or from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who was here and could have done it. If the explanation had been given earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend might have saved time in this debate.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have been in the Chamber since Question Time yesterday, virtually without a break except for a few minutes now and again, and this is only the second time I have succeeded in catching the eye of the Chair. I have had plenty of time to reflect on what is in the Government's mind on the Bill and the way they are forcing it through the Committee. I think that this is the Clause they really want, with its peculiar phrase, "a voting declaration". It is to the meaning of that phrase that I want to address my remarks. This is the nub of the bargain which seems to have been made between the two Front Benches.
On the face of it, if one read the Clause and the White Paper quickly, one would see nothing particularly wrong. The superficial meaning is fairly obvious. The Clause seems to be saying that, at the beginning of each Parliament, a list of names will be drawn up. It will be a question of locking the doors to the other place, assembling the new peers on the starting line and then letting them loose for five years of useful although tiny activities.
But when one reads the Clause again and again and in conjunction with the White Paper, it becomes clearer that it is an ingenious device. To those who, like myself, are not particularly attracted by the idea of the two-party system running throughout the constitution, it even has a rather sinister ring. The Home Secretary

referred to the need to take what was being done by the Government in good faith. Unfortunately, he does not accept the good faith of hon. Members in this Committee and it is rather hard for us to believe wholly in his.
Even looking at the superficial meaning of the Clause and of the expression, "a voting declaration", certain disadvantages become apparent. To make a declaration which has to last the lifetime of a Parliament is onerous for the two categories of peer likely to be in the House, old men and busy men. I cannot help feeling that, after they have signed on the dotted line, they are going to feel that they are doing time—which is what they will be doing. They will be working their time out in the Upper House, and I am sure that, by the end of it, the vast majority will wish that they had never made this voting declaration for the whole Parliament. It is, in effect, to be a five-year forecast of intent to serve the nation, apparently without reward or recognition.
Anyone who has had experience as I have of dealing with people at turning points in their lives, who are planning what their activities are going to be, knows that to ask them to sign a five-year contract is alarming to them. The idea of making people sign a voting declaration for the whole life of a Parliament will add further to the difficulty of recruitment to the other place, particularly if the peers are neither to be paid nor to have any power.
Why are the Government so determined to have a commitment of this kind? What does the voting declaration really mean? Why does the Bill not simply define the categories of voting peers and then leave these fortunate—or unfortunate—people to follow their consciences?
Why must they sign a declaration? There are two reasons. One, into which I cannot go further, because it deals with Clause 4, is to compel attendance. To explain the second, we must take into account a peculiar smell which hits one on wandering in this part of the Bill. Our noses lead us to the declaratory Preamble—which has no legislative force—from which we divine that the declaration is designed to see that the powers that be can include Members adhering to the governing party in sufficient numbers to ensure that the Government never have trouble with the other place. So, the


party managers, who have taken power here, will be able to pack the other House as well. This is what the Clause is about and that is why it should be removed entirely.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the Clause were removed entirely, surely then there could be no peers aged 72 in the other place. What would the hon. Gentleman put in their place?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The Clause clearly——

The Chairman: Order. We are on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and are not discussing a substitution for it.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Everything which the hon. Member wants would be met by the removal of the Clause. Neither the White Paper nor the Bill tells us precisely what a voting declaration will consist of. Will it be simply an undertaking to turn up regardless of whether one can contribute to the debate, to make up the numbers or an undertaking about how one proposes to vote? If it is not the latter, it has virtually no meaning and the Government could give way.
The White Paper refers in Paragraph 31 to a Committee:
The Government does however see attraction in the possibility of a committee which, while possessing no power of nomination, would review periodically the composition of the reformed House and report, either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament, on any deficiencies in the balance and range of the membership of the House.
This is where the need for the voting declaration has originated.
'"Its members would include representatives of the political parties"—
it does not say how chosen—
and persons without party political affiliations; a person of national standing but not necessarily with party political affiliations would be its chairman. Its reports would enable Parliament and the country as a whole to satisfy themselves that the powers of patronage were not being abused.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going outside the Question which is before the Committee.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: It is because I have had time to reflect on the meaning

of these declarations and have tried to burrow down to where they have originated that I now feel that this concept of the Committee is inadequately worked out. What are the Government's intentions? How will it work and what power will it have to shuffle these declarations and force the Upper Chamber to conform to the Government's ideas?
I cannot deduce how this balancing act with the declarations will be done——

The Chairman: Order. The Clause is not concerned with numbers in the Upper Chamber. The hon. Member is now outside the scope of the Question.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Of course,
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Irving, but I think that it is not wrong to say that too much is unexplained. There is a good deal of absolutely new matter here. If we are asked to accept this, we are entitled to ask the Government to be much more explicit. This whole purpose of asking people who are queuing—if anyone is so unwise as to do that—for nominations to the other place to sign an advance declaration, is to provide a way of exerting pressure on their judgment.
There are phrases in the Clause which suggest that whoever drafted it knew that this was in the Government's mind. For instance, in subsection (4) there is the unusual phrase
…or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
This would allow someone to get his name on the start line after the rest had gone. Why should it be required, except to juggle with the numbers——

The Chairman: Order. I am having difficulty in seeing how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Clause. Perhaps he would help me.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Gladly, Mr. Irving. I quoted from the Clause in referring to these sinister suggestions in subsection (4). Perhaps it would be clearer if I read the whole of that subsection:
A voting declaration in respect of a Parliament shall not be deposited by any peer after the end of the period of one month from the issue of the writ summoning him to attend the House in that Parliament, or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.


I do not know what these special reasons might be. If the Tammany management have made mistakes, they can rectify them afterwards through this Clause. I do not want such wide latitude given to party managers in this House or by some Committee of nebulous constitutional status, to juggle the composition of the Upper House after a Parliament has begun.
If my suspicions are unfounded, how do we find in subsection (5) the converse:
A voting declaration deposited by a peer "——

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is out of order. The action under subsection (5) is by the peer himself and not by any party or outside body, seeking, as the hon. Member suggests, to manipulate the composition of the Upper Chamber.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I mentioned the pressures which might be brought to bear on the Members of the Upper House. There seems to be no limit to such pressure by the Government on a man, who will receive no remuneration.
Subsection (5) ends:
… may at any time be withdrawn by notice in writing given by him to the Lord Chancellor.
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can allay our fears; I hope that he will. I shall be glad to wait as long as necessary for him to illuminate the meaning of those two subsections and their reason for being in the Bill.
As I have waited so long to speak, may I also say something about age? We should examine the prejudice which underlies the thinking behind the Clause. I do not want to pile Pelion on Ossa. Practically every hon. Member who has spoken about age has found fault with this idea of limiting the upper age limit to 72, with the exception of the Solicitor-General—and he did not succeed in convincing anybody that he believed what he said. Anyone familiar with the work of William Blake will know that devastating drawing of Aged Ignorance clipping the wings of Hope. But some people are carried away by their prejudices about the old until their fear of older people in positions of authority becomes a positive obsession.
[Mr. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair]
8.30 p.m.
If we consider other nations and societies, we find some dominated by respect for old age. Others are carried away by the enthusiasm of youth. One may even see some system of alternation between periods of veneration and periods of overthrow, for instance, in China, where one used to imagine that people venerated their ancestors. Now they are dominated by their Red Guards. Had we known Bismarck's Germany, we would have said that it was a highly traditional society respecting the power of men in authority and the old. Under Hitler, the opposite forces took over, and the Hitler Youth and all the things which went with the over-praise of youth had a disastrous effect, not only for Germany, but for the whole of Europe.
It is just conceivable that we, too, are allowing ourselves to go too far down the road towards respect for everything which comes to us from youth and we are not giving enough veneration to the older forces in our society which should also have their influence. We are tending to lose our balance over the question of youth versus age. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has re sumed his place, I shall not be able to give way to any hon. Members who wish to interrupt me.
Possibly one of the reasons behind the Bill is that the concept of the uselessness of old age has seized the minds of the drafters. All of us are filled with vexation at the brakes on progress in this country which are all too apparent: I myself am one of those who feel that a Bill somewhat on the lines of the Government's Bill could have a value.
When we started our Committee proceedings, I was full of optimism that the Government would genuinely be prepared to listen to back benchers and that they would from time to time modify their thinking so as to improve the Bill. But as we have worked our weary way through it hour upon hour the Government have been absolutely adamant about not being prepared to listen to reason from any quarter, and it has become increasingly dispiriting attempting to play a constructive part in this Committee. It rests with


the Solicitor-General to pay attention to what is said and to show that the Government are amenable to reason. I do not think that he wishes the British constitution to be a vehicle without brakes. It may be that the brakes on progress are too strong and too frequently applied in this country. Nevertheless, brakes there must be in any constitution in a civilised society.
I do not wish to detain the Committee long in considering the roots of prejudice against age and maturity which have taken hold of society. To some extent, it is a very healthy reaction against the Establishment which in the 1930s came together to hold back change and had much too much power, partly as a result of the coalition of right wing forces which ran the country after 1931. We have also been seized by what I call "the Kennedy complex"—the feeling that unless a very young man is in charge there must be something wrong with the organisation. This feeling is widely found in industry, but it is also found in Government. It arises largely from our almost universal practice of using the pyramid structure in administration.
In Government and in industry, one tends to find that men are organised for work in such a way that there are a few old men at the top and a very large number of young men at the bottom. While the hope of promotion is the main incentive in industry, the Civil Service and in the House of Commons, and while a few old men hold on to the desirable jobs and many younger men are trying to move up into them, there is bound to be unreasonable prejudice between old and young.
Instead of discounting the value of older men we should see that they are in the right place to do what they are fit for and, at the same time, do not hold up younger people from moving up the ladder. One should not adopt an obsessional attitude towards this and say that old men have no place in our society. But that, to a great extent, is the philosophy behind the Bill. It appears in the recommendation that nobody over 72 should play a part in the working of the British constitution. This drive of youth against age is overdone and if we do not watch out we will lose something of real value.
Hon. Members referred earlier to outstanding British and foreign statesmen, administrators, civil servants, soldiers and others who are still able to make a first-class contribution at the age of 72 and more. All hon. Members can call to mind people in this category. An outstanding example was Baroness Asquith, formerly Lady Violet Bonham-Carter. I believe she was over 72 when she achieved a position of importance in our constitution, and the House of Commons would have been advantaged if she had been able to secure her election to this place many years ago. She was able in her old age to make a valuable contribution in the other place, but she would be excluded from doing so by the terms of the clause.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has expressed a desire not to stand at the next General Election? Would he agree that he would be an admirable candidate for the other place, since although he is well over 72 he has great ability, experience and vitality?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I concur. That is one of the examples that readily springs to the mind.
The example of Baroness Asquith gives us an insight into the peculiar workings of the cabal, junta or consensus which is supposed to have met to draw up the White Paper. I cannot believe that the Liberal Party, if it read what was circulated as a result of the meetings of this secret conference, could have understood that it was proposed to exclude people such as Baroness Asquith, one of the most prominent Liberals of their day. This suggests that the degree of attention given by the junta to this matter was limited.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is commenting on a vitally important subject. Would he now comment on the relationship of guilt in this context? Would he agree that we shy away from age and have a prejudice in favour of youth because we feel that we have made a failure of our affairs and have made the lives of older people intolerable——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman


intervening or attempting to make a speech? I have not yet called him to make a speech.

Mr. Smith: I was hoping that I would persuade my hon. Friend to deal with the interesting topic of age and youth. The subject of guilt must enter into it if we are to understand this unnatural prejudice against age.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Having read the Clause, I cannot see that the subject of guilt comes within its terms. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman does not invite his hon. Friend to develop this theme, because that would put him out of order.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order, Mr. Probert. Have you considered: he Freudian implications of guilt in regard to this Clause? Is it not a relevant consideration?

The Temporary Chairman: It might be, but it is not in order.

Sir B, Rhys Williams: I am grateful to you for allowing me to go rather wide on this question, Mr. Probert. It is not out of order to consider the contributions the older men and women can make to society. Old people are not all like Tithonus, getting smaller and smaller every year, unable to die, holding on to authority. That is not the conception I have, particularly with regard to the Bill as it now stands. The problem the Government will have will be to get people to go to the Upper House. People there will not hold on to their power year after year, long after they have passed their peak, because they will have to comply with the requirements of the Bill, which are onerous. For their pains they will get only their expenses——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the hon. Member looks at the White Paper and at what the Prime Minister said he will see that there will be payment.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman knows that I think it is insane to try to recruit an Upper House of any value unless one is prepared to give value in exchange. The Government stand on this question of pay is insincere. They must be aware, as we all are, that in the end if an effective House is to be recruited they will have to pay. The Bill at present allows only expenses.
But while that is so, the major problem will be recruiting people. The Government will not be burdened by a lot of people over 72 who insist on crowding into the Lobbies. There is also another condition in the next Clause which excludes people unless they are prepared to turn up for at least one-third of the total number of working days. Older people are not prepared to work to that kind of programme, and the Solicitor-General must recognise that he is boxing against an enemy which is not in the ring.
I still have a conception of what the new House of Lords ought to be. To some extent it will correspond with what in other countries is known as a senate, that is, a meeting place for the older people. That would not be wrong. We need this element of continuity and maturity in the constitution, and we need to give a place for people of experience to speak and be heard. I hope that the new House of Lords will be a conspectus of all that is best in British life including the best of our older men.
I trust that our Amendment will not be treated in the same way as our other recommendations have been. There is a time and place for everything, and this is the time and place for a concession. There are two reasons for this. Without any payment it would be hard enough to get anyone to serve in the other House, but under Clause 4 the loss of the voting rights through non-attendance puts it in the power of the Government virtually to strike off whomever they wish——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray into the subject of Clause 4, which we have not yet reached.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I accept your remark, Mr. Probert. I shall not try to deal with Clause 4 now, in the hope that I can deal with it later in greater detail. I would repeat that the Solicitor-General has the opportunity to convince the Committee that the Government are acting in good faith and are listening to what we say, and that when we say things that are patently true and accepted on all sides of the House they will listen to us.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. Could I inquire whether the intervention of the hon. and learned Gentleman


at this stage is to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion?—because I would point out that very many hon. Members require elucidation on certain aspects of this Clause and that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets up now we shall be unable to have that enlightenment to which we are entitled.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr.Probert): That is not a point of order.

The selection of who is to speak is a matter for the Chair. The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) put certain specific questions to me about this Clause, and I would like to give as helpful a reply as I can. He asked whether we could offer any indication of the context, for example, of the voting declaration. As I see it, the voting declaration does not have to be in a prescribed form, although the form of disclaimer of peerage is prescribed by the Peerages Act of 1963. The reason for the difference, even, if you like, for the contrast, is that disclaimer of a peerage affects legal rights analogous to rights of property. A voting declaration must be in writing but can be in any form provided it indicates the peer's wish to be qualified as a voting peer. In practice, the Lord Chancellor will issue with the writ of summons a formal declaration which a peer can use. My hon. Friend asked if I could amplify or explain what is contained in subsection (4). Under that subsection, a voting declaration must normally be deposited within one month of the issue of the writ of summons to the Parliament. A peer created during the Parliament will thus have one month in which to deposit a voting declaration; and existing peers will have approximately one month from the dissolution of the previous Parliament.
The time limit, about which the hon. Gentleman particularly asked, may be extended by the House for special reasons. He asked whether I could indicate to the Committee what kind of special reasons were envisaged. I can offer one example of what would be a special reason. We feel some such provision is needed, for example, for cases in which a peer is unable to deposit his declaration within the month on account of illness or other emergency.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) earlier in the course of our consideration of the Clause asked me whether the extended period was intended to be of general application or a concept to be applied, by contrast, ad hominem. I have already communicated with him about this matter, but I venture to offer to him and to the Committee the view that, on a true construction, the provision is intended to be ad hominem and has that effect.
For the rest——

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If the Clause and the voting declaration required under it have nothing to do with party and the way in which the peer proposes to vote if included in the Upper House, how will the Committee, the powers that be, or whoever finally decides who is to be nominated to the Upper House, learn from the man what his voting intentions are and what his precise commitment will be on how he will vote?

The Solicitor-General: The voting declaration will make clear the intention of the signatory that he is desirous of voting. There is no suggestion from any quarter that the declaration should indicate a disposition to vote in any particular way. I think that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Sir B. Rhys Williamsrose——

The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to allow me to proceed. The criticism of the hon. Gentleman and of other Members of the Committee has mainly been directed to what is said to be the lack of defence for the age limit of 72. That has really become the burden of the criticism of the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has expressed the view that the age limit should be lower, and. by implication, was critical of the age of 72.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was clearly not content with the explanation which I sought to offer for our decision upon this age limit.
I understand that during my short absence I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), but I gather that he echoed the line of criticism of his right hon. Friend.
I do not feel optimistic about the prospect of satisfying these critics on this point, because I have nothing to add to my earlier submissions on how this figure was arrived at.

Hon. Members: Shame.

The Solicitor-General: One of my hon. Friends called "Shame". But I have endeavoured to point out that, in the nature of things, a tremendous variety of matters are relevant in coming to a determination of this kind.

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Sheldonrose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenterrose——

The Solicitor-General: As I mentioned earlier——

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

The Solicitor-General: As I mentioned earlier——

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Sheldonrose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenterrose——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr.Probert): Order. If the hon. and learned Member does not give way, I appeal to hon. Members to resume their seats.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was nothing he could add in the hope of satisfying my criticisms. He will recall that I specifically asked him what the mathematical calculations were to which, somewhat mysteriously, he referred when replying earlier. If these calculations exist, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his immense powers of exposition, can expound them.

Mr. Sheldon: Would my hon. and learned Friend tell us if they were given to the Opposition Front Bench?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot produce as an exhibit the calculations or the formulae. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am asked, "Why not?". I merely tell the Committee that the position is I cannot produce them. I suggest to the Committee, with every possible respect to critics of this figure of 72, that it would really be a most unusual state of affairs—on a matter of this kind where so many disparate factors are relevant—to offer to the Committee a series of exhibit formulae, as it were, and to endeavour

to assess them. I am not able to do that. I hope the Committee will think I have sufficiently indicated the character of factor that the Government have had in mind.

Mr. Sheldon: Were these figures given to the Front Bench Opposition spokesmen and the Liberal Party?

Hon. Members: Where are the Liberals?

The Solicitor-General: I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question and tell him whether this was or was not so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to calculations which presumably must be embodied in a document. Is it not a rule of the House that where a Minister of the Crown in debate refers to a document it is laid?

The Temporary Chairman: As far as I understand it, the Solicitor-General has not quoted any particular document at this stage.

Mr. John Smith: The last time recently that a Member of the House referred to a document and refused to produce it we finished up with a committee of inquiry. Might I ask if these mathematical studies which we have been told about were shown to the Solicitor-General in the Lobby by two printers?

The Temporary Chairman: If the quotations were made specifically it would be right.

Mr. Sheldon: Would my hon. and learned Friend say whether he considers this document to be a secret document?

The Solicitor-General: I do ask my hon. Friend to take this into account in answer to his question: I have not referred to any document. I have referred to calculations, and the calculations were made. The Committee has a document in the shape of a White Paper but there is no other document to which I have referred. I save said, as part of the narrative of this matter, that calculations have been made.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: May I put to the learned Solicitor-General a point that is worrying me and perhaps other hon. Members?
Given an assumed age structure of the new Chamber, and given certain mortality tables, presumably the age of retirement that is required to maintain a stable total membership is a unique and unambiguous figure. Are we right in taking it that the age of 72 is the figure which yields a suitable total for a given period of time, given the assumed age structure and mortality tables?

The Solicitor-General: These are the kind of matters to which regard has been taken, according to my instructions. To my knowledge, they are not in any document that I can identify or have ever referred to in the course of our considerations.
I now wish to take up the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West concerning the writ summoning a peer to attend a House of Parliament. The right hon. Member will bear the point in mind. His contention was based on the ground that the writ of summons directs a peer to attend Parliament and not the House of Lords. I have made some inquiries about this. I do not want to read out the full form of writ, and it would not be appropriate for me to do so, but the writ, which is essentially in the same language as that used many centuries ago, makes provision that, by Her Majesty
We have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden at our city 01 Westminster …We, strictly enjoining, command you "—
leaving out the connecting passages—
that …you be at the said day and place personally present with Us.
In the Second Schedule to the Representation of the People Act 1949, the writ for Parliamentary elections to the House of Commons is shown. The writ is as follows:
Whereas by the advice of Our Council we have ordered a Parliament to be holden at Westminster on the …day of …next We command you that, due notice being first given, you do cause election to be made according to law of a Member to serve in Parliament for the said …Constituency (in the place of …) and that you do cause the name of such Member when so elected, whether he be present or absent, to be certified to Us, in Our Chancery, without delay.
It will be observed from the terms of the writs that in each case Members of both Houses are ordered to attend Parliament

rather than one or other of the Houses of Parliament. The reason is that the form of the writs is based on that issued before Parliament had become a clearly bicameral legislature.
I have dealt with the points raised by hon. Members——

Hon. Members: No.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: On a point of order. In view of the incapacity of the Solicitor-General to reveal the figures on which he bases his calculations, would you, Mr. Gourlay, accept a Motion to report Progress so that he might refresh himself and we can understand what he is talking about?

The Deputy Chairman: I am not prepared to accept such a Motion at this stage.

The Solicitor-General: At the point of that intervention, I was concluding my remarks and inviting the Committee to come to the conclusion that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Gourlay, merely to verify that I understood the Solicitor-General aright, namely, that he accepts my contention that the proper description for the writs of summons is writs of summons to Parliament and that the description in the Bill, even though there may be precedence for it, is not strictly correct and is misleading. Was I right in my understanding?

The Solicitor-General: I have tried to make timely inquiries into the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I should like the opportunity of looking into it further.

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), in a speech of riveting fascination which I feel sure the Committee will agree encompassed so little of the time we have sat here today, referred to the imagery of Blake, to that masterpiece in which Aged Ignorance is clipping the wings of Hope. I can only think that Blake perhaps had some vision of these proceedings, and was using as his model of Aged Ignorance my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley),


who unhappily is not at present in his place.
For those who are under 72 and who have full voting rights, hope springs eternal in our breast. Hope sprang to my breast when the Solicitor-General went to the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate on this Question. I hoped that, in view of our problems, he would be able to give a proper explanation of the many aspects of the Clause which cause many hon. Members great perturbation and which appear to be so complex.
When I espied the Attorney-General coming into the Chamber, I hoped that he might get together with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and produce an answer to our problems. Not that I wish to cause a division between them. As I see them there, I cannot help recalling the words of John Gay:
How happy could I be with either
Were t other dear charmer away."!
[Interruption.] I am always delighted to see the Patronage Secretary. I know the great attention with which he listens to the advice which I tender, not only to the Committee, but to him. If it is so wished, without boring the Committee, I could, for his benefit, recapitulate on what has been said.
Let me come to the important points on which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have come here to help us. It is within the Committee's knowledge that legal gentlemen always like to take a long time before coming to a decision. They like to weigh up all the pros and cons and consult all the necessary authorities before making the important pronouncement which will last for ages. There is still time for the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to con sult together, to look up the various tomes, to consider the precedents and to deal with the problem.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend is not right. He might have noted earlier that the Solicitor-General was caught on one foot when he told the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that he was not appraised of the answer but would find it out and let him know—not me or my hon. Friend or the Committee, but preferential treatment for the right hon. Member.

Mr. Roebuck: I have never regarded my hon. and learned Friend as a stork on one leg but rather as an eagle, perhaps a legal eagle.
The age of 72 is peculiar. I tried earlier to draw an analogy between what will go on in the other place, when persons over 72 will be excluded from law-making processes because they are suffering from senile dementia, and the situation of judges of the same age who both administer and make the law.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman could not be wholly clear, because one of the objections to the Clause is that Lords under the age of 72 can be as mad as hatters but nothing will get them out of the place until they reach that magic age.

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Member fortifies my point. I have to address these inquiries again. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), who understands psychological medicine, would say that some right hon. Gentlemen are in some difficulty in amassing recent memory. Perhaps we should refresh their minds.
We have heard of an arithmetical calculation of this magic figure of 72, which reminds us of the magic numbers like 7——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Bingo.

Mr. Roebuck: We in my constituency do not go in for that very much, but it may be one of the amusements supplied in their Lordships' House. One right hon. Member suggested that the document concerned should be placed on the Table but I suspect that it already is there—that it is in the Box, and is the Bible. Reference is made in that book to three score years and ten. My hon. and learned Friend is a man of great humility and piety and this may be the document to which he referred. If so, he should tell us; we would not decry it. There is much wisdom in that book and he is under no obligation to prove that this figure was reached by way of a scientific and technological revolution in Millbank Towers with slide rules and calculations by electro-chemical methods.
He referred to other calculations in addition to those of an arithmetical nature. Several hon. Members have tried


to probe him on this point. Reference has been made to distinguished statesmen, living or dead, who, far beyond the age of 72, made a tremendous contribution to public life, not only in this country but in others. We have not had from my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of whether his calculations were only of an arithmetical or an historical nature.

9.15 p.m.

Dr. Bennett: Surely the hon. Member is misquoting in his reference to the Bible because the three score years and ten, according to that authority, would lead to automatic retirement from their Lordships' House without the need for legislation.

Mr. Roebuck: It is true that at the time that computation was made society had not had the benefit of people such as the hon. Member who have made a diligent study of medicine and who are able to prolong life. That is something which the Committee should take into consideration, how medical science may alter in the next 10 years. We have to taken account of the fact that we are not legislating for today but for posterity. It may be that some hon. Members think posterity is a long time coming, but I am prepared to delay its approach for as long as may be necessary.
An interesting point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in his usual lucid, I may say pellucid, manner. That was the question of what happens about Ministers in the House of Lords when they are over 72. We have managed to extract at least this from my right hon. and learned Friend. At 72 one ceases to have voting rights, but apparently one is not precluded from putting forward Motions, propositions, or perhaps Bills. Shall we not arrive at an odd situation when one or two of their Lordships will be able to put forward a Bill?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the point I made. At 72 a noble Lord who becomes a Minister ceases to have a vote. He can remain a Minister, introduce a Bill and talk about it but he will not be allowed to vote. We have the anachronism of a Minister in charge of a Bill not being able to vote for it. The Solicitor-General did not deal with that.

Mr. Roebuck: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for further elucidating this difficult problem. As always, he has added to the sum of our knowledge. In my inarticulate way I was trying to address myself to that point. There is great illogicality here.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not sure that the hon. Member has elucidated the matter. The answer to the problem will be found in Clause 5.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We are not on Clause 5.

The Deputy Chairman: I understand the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) is addressing the Committee. Perhaps he will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) very courteously gave way to me. I drew attention to the fact that there is some confusion between him and the hon. Member for West Ham, North about an alleged elucidation. In fact there was confusion because this matter is covered in Clause 5(1). I suppose that I should not be talking about that Clause.

The Deputy Chairman: An hon. Member making an intervention in another hon. Member's speech should do so shortly.

Mr. Roebuck: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). As always, he has understated the case. I intend that as a compliment. I held him in highest regard on the many trips we have had together. He has understated the complexity of the difficulties into which the Committee has fallen. I say this with the greatest affection for the Solicitor-General who, for reasons completely outside his control, has been unable to explain this matter to the Committee. If the Bill is enacted, a noble Lord will be able to sponsor a Bill—but will he? Does not the provision that a peer loses his voting right at age 72 preclude him from making a definite proposition? Is he thereafter there only in an advisory capacity? Does all effective function cease?
Can we have the benefit of the advice of some of the right hon. Gentlemen who normally sit on the Opposite and Front Bench? If the Solicitor-General


is unable to deal with these important legal matters, the Opposition should seize their opportunity and produce the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) to help us. What effect would this provision have if the Government were successful in their application to join the Common Market? The provision that peers will cease to be peers at age 72 runs directly counter to many rules and regulations of the Common Market. There is a distinct possibility that this provision is contrary to the Charter of Human Rights. I would not like my right hon. Friends to be put into the dock at The Hague, or wherever it is that these kangaroo courts are held, and cross-examined about this.

Mr. John Smith: Is not this compulsory retirement age an infringement of the liberty of peers? They will lose their independence. As a Parliament becomes older, the older peers will hesitate to vote according to their consciences because they know that if they do they will be out for good, because they are not entitled to get into the next Parliament. I have no doubt that this provision infringes the Treaty of Rome, but it is also an infringement of liberty.

Mr. Roebuck: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely and am grateful to him for his support. Oscar Wilde referred to the peerage as one of the best things which had been done in fiction. My right hon. Friends have taken that much too literally and felt it necessary to produce some other monumental work of fiction. If Clause 3 is put on to the Statute Book, in the absence of further explanation we shall have erected a monument of fictional nonsense which will not work and which should be included in an anthology of the Brothers Grimm. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) said, the Clause will create a chamber of horrors.
I have rehearsed a few of the problems that have been of great concern to the Committee during the long hours we have sat. We have all been very patient with my right hon. and learned Friends. But

they are treating the Committee with something like contempt in not answering the very proper points raised by hon. Members on both sides.

My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who has paid us a short visit, will have gained during the short time I have been speaking an impression of the great difficulties that face us. I am sure that he will not want to take any action which would seem to try to curtail discussion on the matter and prevent us getting to the root of the very serious problems that are perplexing the whole Committee.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkinrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

The Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Sir B. Rhys Williams (seated and covered): On a point of order. I asked the Solicitor-General whether he would enlighten me as to the meaning of the words "Voting declarations" which form the title to the Clause and appear in practically every sentence of it. As solicitors will, he gave me half a reply. He said that "Voting declarations" did not mean that the man in question would have to declare how he intended to vote but merely that he did intend to vote. But he did not explain to my satisfaction, nor, I think, to that of any hon. Member present, how the powers-that-be are to determine how nominees to the Upper House intend to vote if they do not have to declare their party allegiance with their voting declaration.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order, but has tried to make a speech under false pretences. I cannot allow that.

Sir B. Rhys Williams (seated and covered): I do not see how we can decide how we should vote on whether the Clause should stand part if we do not know the answer to my question.

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 59.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[9.27 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.


Albu, Austen
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Blackburn, F.


Alldritt, Walter
Bence, Cyril
Bradley, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bray, Dr. Jeremy




Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Norwood, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coleman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tie-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, loan L. (Birmin'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Rt. Hn.SirEric (lslington, E.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilkins, W. A.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Winnick, David


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hay, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Heffer, Eric S.
Roebuck, Roy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Birch, Rt. Kn. Nigel
Jopling, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Black, Sir Cyril
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lee, John (Reading)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dickens, James
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhart, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. About an hour ago, Mr. Gourlay, you told, an hon. Member opposite when he moved to report Progress that you could not accept such a Motion at this stage. Would you accept it now, so as to ascertain the Government's view of what is to happen with regard to the proceedings on the Bill?

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member is not strictly correct in his facts. In any case, I must proceed with the Division.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 62.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Albu, Austen
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Alldritt, Walter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Norwood, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Oram, Albert E.


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hattersley, Roy
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, R . W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchan, Norman
Henig, Stanley
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Peart, Rt.Hn. Fred


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Randall, Harry


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rees, Merlyn


Coleman, Donald
Hoy, James
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se A Spenb'gh)
Rowlands, E.


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tIe-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrilngton)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhontlda, E.)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Small, William


Davies, Rt Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Varley, Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Wallace, George


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Watkins, David (Costett)


English, Michael
McCann, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Winnick, David


Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirEric (lslington, E.)
Manuel, Archie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard



Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Galpern, Sir Myer






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dickens, James
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eden, Sir John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hay, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Booth, Albert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhart, Philip
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)




Jopling, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kirk Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lee, John (Reading)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Waddington, David


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Roebuck, Roy
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James
Younger, Hn. George


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sheldon, Robert



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Silvester, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Newens, Stan
Smith, John (London & W'minster
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst and


Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.


Orme, Stanley

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Gourlay, be prepared to accept the Motion,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."?
If you are not prepared to accept it from me, perhaps you would accept it from the Government Chief Whip so that he could tell us what the Government have in mind concerning the proceedings on the Bill.

The Deputy Chairman: I am not prepared to accept such a Motion. We should proceed with the Bill.

Clause 4

LOSS OF VOTING RIGHT BY NON-ATTENDANCE

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 120, in page 4, line 4, leave out from 'than' to '(other' in line 5 and insert:
'two-thirds of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session to debate any matter on which the House of Commons had reached a decision within the same Session and one-half of the total number of other days'.

The Deputy Chairman: It may be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments:
No. 28, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'one third' and insert 'two thirds'.
No. 119, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.
No. 148, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fifth'.
No. 122, in page 4, line 22, leave out 'thirty' and insert:
'five excluding those days on which the House meets to debate any matter on which the House of Commons has reached a decision within the same session'

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: The Clause deals with the loss of voting rights by non-attendance.

An important aspect of the Amendment is the minimum requirement for attendance in the Lords, and this brings us to the third important figure on which the composition of the Upper Chamber is based. The three figures to which I refer relate to the minimum level of attendance, the maximum——

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Gourlay, that there is so much hubbub that it is impossible to hear what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is saying?

The Deputy Chairman: I trust that the Committee has noted the hon. Gentleman's observation.

Mr. Sheldon: As I was saying, the Government have selected in an arbitrary way, the figure of one-third for the number of attendances required to enable a peer to remain a voting peer. The maximum age of 72 before retirement has also been picked by the Government in an arbitrary fashion. The third figure concerns the size of the Upper Chamber, and we know that there will be 230 peers. Floating around these three figures is a salary of about £2,000 a year, and everything hinges on that amount.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the figure of 230 may appear in the White Paper, it does not appear in the Bill?

Mr. Sheldon: We know that this agreement has been made between the party leaders.

[Mr. Arthur Probert in the Chair.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why does my hon. Friend say "we know" when while he may know, we do not know because we have been trying to get this information from the Government? I am beginning to wonder if my hon. Friend is "in


the know" about the secret agreement that was reached.

Mr. Sheldon: Paragraph 46 of the White Paper, which the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said was the cenral theme of the agreement, contains the figure of 230. On that basis——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does my hon. Friend take the point that I have made? I agree with him that this is in the White Paper and the Bill, but none of the other figures in the White Paper are in the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Probert): I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that instead of his continuous interruptions he should try to catch the Chair's eye later, when he may be able to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Sheldon: The point I was making——

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. It is a long-established tradition that hon. Members seeking clarification from another hon. Member who has the Floor are entitled by long precedent to ask that hon. Member to give way. If he does so then an hon. Member is entitled to put a question.

The Temporary Chairman: It is a long tradition that it has been left to the judgment of the Chair. The Chair has to judge whether an interruption is an attempt to become a speech. No one is preventing interruptions but the Chair has to judge whether the interrupter is endeavouring to make a speech.

Mr. Hirst: Further to that point of order. Surely it is the custom of this Committee that if an hon. Gentleman who has the floor of the House gives way to another hon. Member who is seeking to elucidate his speech, that hon. Member is entitled to put his question?

The Temporary Chairman: That is perfectly in order but the hon. Member interrupting must not make a speech.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Further to that point of order. It has been the experience of hon. Members that if we do not make our points by way of elucidation we do not get the opportunity to make them at all.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sheldon: This Clause enables us to discuss all these figures in conjunction with one another. There are the three sets of figures, and floating around is the salary of £2,000. The Solicitor-General said that this was the ideal solution. There could be many solutions. It could be decided that the attendance should be two-thirds. Then we would need to pay people more money in order to get that two-thirds attendance. All sorts of changes can be made, the Chamber can be reduced in size from 230 to 150 or the age could be changed. Such permutations will give different kinds of Chamber, as a result of these figures interacting upon each other.
For some reason the Government have decided on one set of figures. No one knows why. This is a tenable system, but there are many others. When deciding the constitution of another place, the very least we ought to have is the figuring that went into this. Why did the Government make these arbitrary decisions? There may be valid reasons. We have not been given them but have been told we will not get them. This is outrageous. In devising a constitution for another place certain figures and calculations have been adduced and carried out. There has been an element of secrecy, and we are not given the details. These figures exist in an ordered form. Has the Opposition Front Bench been given these figures? We are entitled to know. Why have they not been given to us? Why are they regarded as secret?
The Prime Minister has said that he is investigating ways to reduce secrets. I put a Question to him about how he was proposing to implement the Fulton reforms. One of the reforms was to reduce the level of unnecessary secrecy within the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend accepted this, and he is at present investigating ways to reduce secrecy. This is the first time that a move has been made towards reducing secrecy. But this is the worst kind of secrecy. Very few types of secrecy are less justifiable than in this instance. These are facts open to so many people, but concealed from us. We have a right to know, because we are passing judgment in a matter of extreme constitutional importance. If these figures have been bandied about to the Opposition Front Bench, and if they are the basis of the agreement


and the decision reached, we should have the figures that prompted that decision.

The Secretary of State for Social Ser vices (Mr. Richard Crossman): I have been following closely what my hon. Friend has said. Certain calculations were made on our behalf and, if my hon. Friend feels interested, I will consider making them available to him, although they are long and complicated.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would make these figures available to his hon. Friend, but I think that the Committee as a whole could do with them.

Mr. Crossman: I was not implying that there was some exclusive personal privilege for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. In view of that most important statement by my right hon. Friend, the ex-Leader of the House and architect of the Bill, in agreement with the Opposition Front Bench, in order that we may have an opportunity of looking at these figures in this document, which so far we have not heard about except as a vague concept which apparently did not exist until now., surely the Committee will want to adjourn. Then, having studied the figures, at a much later time we can come back and participate much more intelligently in discussion on the Clause.

In view of that statement by my right hon. Friend, I think that we should take this opportunity to adjourn the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member's point of order had continued a little longer, he would have found that I should be interrupting him to report Progress at the hour of Ten o'clock.

Mr. Sheldon: I should like to express my very deep gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the considerable break-through in this matter. I understand that it is not very easy, when one has information which has for long been regarded as secret, to decide on one's own initiative to reveal it. For that I am extremely grateful, and I think that the Committee ought to be grateful.

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order, Mr. Probert. I think that the right hon. Gentleman——

It being Ten o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put.
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 69.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davidson, Arthur (Accrkigton)
Ginsburg, David


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Anderson, Donad
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Archer, Peter
Delargy, Hugh
Gregory, Arnold


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bence, Cyril
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Blackburn, F.
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hannan, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Harper, Joseph


Brooks, Edwin
Ellis, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
English, Michael
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Haseldine, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hattersley, Roy


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Faulds, Andrew
Hazell, Bert


Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, E.
Henig, Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hooley, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Ford, Ben
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John
Hoy, James


Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerry
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Hunter, Adam


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Dalyell, Tam
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)




Janner, Sir Barnett
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Snow, Julian


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Neal, Harold
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Norwood, Christopher
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Lawson, George
Oram, Albert E.
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Wallace, George


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Loughlin, Charles
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitaker, Ben


McCann, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackie, John
Pentland, Norman
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Randall, Harry
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Hudders field, E.)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Manuel, Archie
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Winnick, David


Marks, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woof, Robert


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rowlands, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W)
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John (London & W 'minster)


Dickens, James
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
Lee, John (Reading)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Waddington, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Rose&Crom'ty)
Waker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order——

Sir D. Glover: I was already in the middle of a point of order when the Committee divided, Mr. Probert.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert): Order. I call Mr. Arthur Lewis.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Just before the House divided——

Sir D. Glover: But I was in the middle of a point of order——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The time is now after Ten o'clock, so this would become a new point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Just before the Committee divided, the Secretary of State for Social Services said that certain papers and documents would be printed and laid. Two or three minutes before, the hon. and learned Solicitor-General said that there were no such papers or documents. He was challenged—it is no good the Attorney-General laughing. We were definitely told that there were no papers or documents. The Committee has been told a deliberate lie. My hon. and learned Friend could not have been telling the truth. He spoke only two minutes before the Secretary of State said that there


were no documents, yet he said that there were no documents and papers of any sort. Which of those statements is correct?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark about a "deliberate lie".

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Sir, in the words of Winston Churchill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I withdraw, Mr. Probert, but nevertheless two completely opposing statements have been made to the Committee within a matter of minutes.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. I was, as you know, Mr. Probert, raising this point of order when we divided. This is a point of order with a great deal of substance. We have been debating for a long time and asking again and again on what basis the general agreement between both Front Benches, on the solutions that they have reached, was made. Just before we divided, the Secretary of State for Social Services said that the Government had all the figures on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is erudite in this subject, had been speaking to the Committee for some time, saying that one of his problems was to know the basis for this agreement.
For the first time since we began these debates the Secretary of State said that there are figures and calculations which could be made available for the Committee to reach a sound judgment on the agreement between the two Front Benches. A senior Member of the Government has said that this information and these figures are available. If hon. Members had 24 hours to consider them it might reduce the length of our deliberations and improve our judgment and allow us even to give support to the Government for their proposals. But the Secretary of State's statement produces a totally new situation.
I wonder whether you would consider a Motion,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again,
so that hon. Members can accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer, study these figures

and then, instead of a 24-hour debate, perhaps have a two-hour debate and even decide that the logic of the argument was with the Government on Clause 4. But we cannot possibly reach a conclusion on Clauses 3, 4 or 5 unless we have the documents on which this agreement was based. The Secretary of State now says that he has these figures and is prepared to give them to the Committee. I submit that that is an overwhelming case for the Chair to accept the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Temporary Chairman: I under stand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I cannot accept the Motion at this moment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. I do not wish to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Probert. However, we have been told that a certain document is in existence which we have been told we shall have the advantage of seeing and which directly bears upon these Amendments. It is possible that hon. Members will find that the Amendment which calls for two-thirds attendance is not logical for reasons which might be given in that document to explain why the figure of one-third has been reached.
In the circumstances, there is a good case for the Committee to report Progress and to have time to look at the various documents so that we can return to our discussion of the Amendment on the basis of the facts which we should then have before us, but which are at present the exclusive preserve of my right hon. Friends and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Crossman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to shorten the discussion. I made no reference to a document; I referred to figures. There is no secrecy about these figures. They are figures which anyone can obtain by studying the attendances in the Lords during the last five or six years. What I said was that I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I mentioned the figures on the basis of which we reached our conclusions. I will give the Committee these figures, which are quite simple. There is nothing secret or mysterious and no document  required


[HON. MEMBERS: "Why waste time? Why not give them in the first place?"] The time wasted was the time before I was allowed to make a statement.

Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. When questions of the calculations arose, the Solicitor-General was asked time after time by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to state the basis of the calculations, and he said that he could not give the figures. But now the Secretary of State says that all are available. Is this not a monstrous treatment of hon Members?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Probert, about how the Secretary of State is addressing the Committee? Is he on a point of order, or is he speaking to some Motion?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to give information to the Committee to meet a point of order.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. The right hon. Gentleman has joined the debate merely to insult the Committee by saying that hon. Members have been wasting time. The people who have been wasting time have been the Government, especially the Attorney-General.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. It would be most inconvenient to the Committee if my right hon. Friend, having proposed that he should give figures which everyone wishes to hear, through some procedural tangle were not able to give them. I understand that when the Rule was suspended my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was addressing the Committee and had given way to one or two hon. Members. I suggest that one way in which the difficulty could be overcome for the convenience of those who wish to continue the debate would be for my hon. Friend to give way to the Secretary of State so that the figures may be given, or that he should resume his seat and, since we are in Committee, my hon. Friend could catch your eye at a later stage after the figures have been given. That would put the matter in order.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for assisting the Chair. I think this would be an orderly way of proceeding. I remind the Committee that the Question has not yet been put. If the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) would like to continue dealing with the Amendments, which have been chosen, he could do so and then give way to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Sheldonrose——

The Temporary Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Member misunderstood me; the fault is obviously mine. If he wishes he can permit the right hon. Gentleman to intervene, but I think the better way would be to continue his speech on the Amendment and draw that to a close so that the Secretary of State, if he catches my eye, may address the Committee.

Mr. Sheldon: So much of what I have to say depends on an interpretation I wished to put on the figures as I understood them that, since the figures are obviously inadequate by comparison with those we are now to receive, I wish to resume my seat and hope to catch your eye, Mr. Probert, later.

The Temporary Chairman: The Question is. That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry to have caused any disturbance to the Committee by what I considered an interruption in the speech of my hon. Friend. I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings.

Mr. Hirst: May I ask the Minister to give the figures a little more slowly so that we can take them down?

Mr. Crossman: I apologise and repeat the figures. In the Session 1967–68 up to 1st August, 1968–76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over 50 per cent. of the


sittings. This is the calculation as to what the effect would be for a 50 per cent. requirement, a two-thirds requirement, or a one-third requirement. Ninety-nine created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings.
My conclusion is that, unless many more peers were created, an attendance requirement of 50 per cent. would produce a much smaller voting House than

the 230 thought desirable, if that is the figure we wanted. It was on this basis of the calculation of attendances for 50 per cent. and one-third that we came to the conclusion that one-third of the sittings would be a reasonable requirement.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "attendance"? Does he merely mean looking in and collecting the fee, because that is all it is?

Mr. John Smith: Unaccustomed as I am to finding myself speaking so early in a debate, I want to explore this very important aspect of the Bill. I see difficulties here, but it is a very important proposal of some complication which we must deal with thoroughly.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. If the two Ministers are giving private information to an hon. Member, is it possible for all of us to have the information?

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Smith.

Mr. John Smith: Attendance requirements of any sort are bound to affect the type of person who becomes a peer. They may make for an improvement or they may not make for an improvement, but they are bound to have, and are intended to have, an effect on the type of person who becomes a member of the House of Lords. The Government have decided that the House of Lords in its present form does not suit them.
We must first consider why people accept peerages now. Many people accept a peerage now because they see no harm in it, because they think that it would be churlish to refuse; or think that it is a chance to be of service, to air views on subjects which they know about and, on occasion, even to influence events. In that way there is a choice of the best people. Hardly anyone, however busy and however distinguished, would refuse to serve on this basis. I am sure that if the Government told us what percentage of those who have been offered peerages had declined them it would prove my point.

Mr. Roebuck: If it is true that few people would refuse to serve in those circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the reasons why the Opposition Front Bench has recently acquired two recruits from the Lords?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Smith: But what type of person will accept peerages under the new system? Surely, few good people except politicians will bind themselves to turn up, whether there is anything useful that they can do or not. Unscrupulous people, however, who want peerages for

ornamental purposes, will cheerfully agree to the attendance requirement and then, as soon as they get there, violate the attendance requirement, so that——

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair.]

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend is making a rather devastating attack on the motives of a great many people, saying that they do this for that reason. Has he any evidence that people accept peerages for ornamental reasons and the like? My experience is that a good many people refuse peerages because they do not want to be ornamental and various other reasons. The suggestion is a rather disgraceful one. There is no evidence that that is the basis on which people accept peerages.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The Amendment appears to be more concerned with the number of days' attendance than the reasons why peers attend.

Mr. Smith: I first described in reasonably favourable terms the type of person who now accepts a peerage. When my hon. Friend intervened, I had turned to the type of person whom we may expect to accept peerages if this Measure is passed. I was saying that unscrupulous people, for ornamental purposes, will cheerfully agree to the attendance requirement—which honourable people would not do unless they meant to observe it—and, as soon as they get there, will violate the attendance requirement, so that all that happens is that they become nonvoting peers with no duties but, as it seems they desire, the title. Since according to the Bill, they are to get no pay, by this manoeuvre they will have lost nothing but their chains. On the other hand, honourable candidates will be kept away because they will not accept peerages unless they mean to accept all these onerous requirements. What sort of House will this produce?
An attendance requirement of any sort will also lower the quality of the House in another way. Those who satisfy the requirements will be the most assiduous Members. All of us know that the most constant and assiduous members of any committee are not always the most helpful or most valuable. We have had examples of that in the past day or two.


Indeed, it is precisely by invariably turning up when others do not, for example, that Communists gain control of other bodies.
Furthermore, those who attend here the most are not always those most highly regarded by the Government. We should not, therefore, necessarily assume that there is a direct relationship between assiduous attendance and desirability.
Will these peers be usefully employed when they are there? What happens in the other place if there is nothing to do?

Mr. John Lee: In defining the concept of attendance, would not the hon. Member use, perhaps, the same definition as is used in the London dock labour scheme: merely signing on in the morning and in the afternoon to get a minimum attendance in that way?

An Hon. Member: Do they clock out as well?

Mr. Smith: I do not want to introduce an unwelcome note of controversy. This is a rather closely reasoned argument, and I should like to pursue it if I may.
What happens in another place if there is nothing to do? What happens there if the Government run totally out of ideas? We have seen what happens here, but the Government do not have in the Lords the same apparatus for keeping the boys out of mischief as they have here, by putting on fatuous items of business like the Bill. Will it be edifying to see all these carefully selected and vetted peers mooning around their noble pile with not enough to do?
Even if they do have enough to do, is a severe attendance requirement a good plan? Is it a good plan for Members of either House, for Members of Parliament as a whole? We all know, if we are shut up here for any length of time, how claustrophobic it becomes, how we lose touch with the real world outside, and how perhaps the quality of our discussion changes.
I do not think that a severe attendance requirement has a direct connection with the excellence of what takes place. I could advance a very good argument for the reverse proposition—that it is essential for people who are shut up in a claustrophobic, introverted institution,

which all too easily generates a life of its own, like a school, to spend a large part of their time outside it—although I do not accept for a moment the proposition that any of us here are experts on anything. It is impossible to join an institution so mentally dissipating as this and remain in touch with any particular talent or skill one had outside it. That leads to great ossification in Parliament; it prevents many of us from being able to return to our previous avocations, and hence has its effect on our voting. I will not pursue that point, but merely say that there is no direct connection between a high rate of attendance and the excellence of what takes place.
I have discussed the merits of high attendance requirements. But are they practical? There are no provisions in the Bill for paying peers. I will not go into the sophistry about this. I do not know what the Government will do. Perhaps they know, but there is nothing in the Bill, much to my regret, nor is there anything in it about pensions for peers. I think that they should be paid a great deal. But, as it is, unless these peers are to be capitalists to a man, they will have to work outside, just as we do. The attendance requirement is coupled with the absence of payment, or the payment of a trivial amount. Further, the necessity that they should work outside makes it virtually certain that young people will be totally excluded from membership of the reformed House. [Interruption.] I am against a high attendance requirement and in favour of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), which is the best of the bunch. I greatly admire my right hon. Friend for the staunch way in which he has stayed throughout this difficult debate.
A high attendance rate is impractical for another reason. If peers are to be in another place a great deal, Parkinson's First Law will apply—"Work fills the time available for its completion". I do not mean work on the Floor of the Chamber; peers will need and demand places to work in. If they are to be partly professional, partly full-time by requirement, they must keep themselves properly informed. They will not be in the position that they were in before, when they could go to the House of Lords only when a subject on which they


were genuine experts was being discussed and then deliver themselves of their opinion. They will have to be, like we should be, provided with proper facilities to keep abreast of events. They will need secretaries to help them.
Where is all this to be accommodated in this building? We spent a lot of time, not enough, the other day discussing how we were to be provided with the physical facilities to do a fraction of our proper job—and we made the wrong decision. We agreed to put up a building in X years' time which will be out of date before it is erected. Exactly the same problem will face a House of Lords reformed in the way proposed. If we pass this Clause relating to attendance requirements, we can say with absolute certainty that this building, inexorably, will be abandoned.

Mr. Hirst: Would my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that it might be better if the requirement were that selected peers spent no more time in the House of Lords than was necessary?

Mr. Smith: There are many ways to approach this problem. We could say that the new peers are being paid, they have taken on the job, and, therefore, they should spend the whole of their time in the House of Lords and that bedrooms should be built there. I am not advancing that argument. We could do, as the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) wants, and have a very low attendance requirement. One can be serious about this matter without necessarily being boring, and still remain cheerful. But we can regard it as absolutely certain that an attendance requirement for a reformed House of Lords means the eventual abandonment of this building. Do we want that? My view is that this is a marvellous building. It is a building of great quality and it is precisely suited——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the building or the physical limitations on Members who attend it. The hon. Gentlemen should come back to the details of the Amendment and not discuss the principle of the Clause.

Mr. Smith: I apologise, Mr. Gourlay. I was exploring the consequences of the Government's actions. I know that it is

not in the least fashionable to consider the consequences of the Government's actions. As a person who all his life has been very much attached to buildings of merit, I merely say that I regret these attendance requirements, because I foresee that they will force the Lords out of their nineteenth century fairyland which exactly suits what they have to do.
10.45 p.m.
So much for practical considerations. I come to the effect of a high attendance requirement on the composition of the House of Lords. A high attendance requirement places a strain on health. We have had evidence of the effect of attendance requirements here. I remember, when I was a member of the general public, the deplorable impression created by reports in the Press of hon. Members being brought by ambulance from hospital to vote in this House. That is an extreme case but only an exaggeration of what could happen in the House of Lords. As they approach the magic age of 72, peers should begin to take things a little more easily if they wish to last a little longer; but under this system they will not be able to do so, for it introduces a rigid requirement which applies both to brand new peers and to older peers. In parenthesis, we do net know the age at which the Government intend to create these peers, but they say that they have done their calculations and that the age of 72 will produce the vacancies which they require. If that is so, they must also have calculated the age at which they will appoint peers, because the number of vacancies will be affected by the length of time a person is a peer. If they have selected the age at which they will appoint, it follows that a person's age will be the criterion of whether he is ennobled, not his qualities. I should have liked to speak about that on the last Amendment; but I have done so now.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps in continuing his speech the hon. Member will not tread on the courtesy of the Chair.

Mr. Smith: With a high attendance requirement, we must expect that it will polish off some of these elderly gentlemen. I see that the Opposition Chief Whip has left the Chamber and that the Secretary of State for Social Services


has left his seat but has now returned to it. I had no intention of frightening those right hon. Gentlemen.
This high attendance requirement will affect the Solicitor-General's calculations about the age of retirement at 72. He said that he could not produce the figures because they were too complicated, but complicated actuarial matters of this sort are included in the Finance Bill every year and we could well have had the figures tonight. Has he, to sum up, considered the effect of a high attendance requirement on the rate at which peers will have to give up their voting rights and, consequently, the speed at which he will have to appoint further peers?
Further, a high attendance requirement is also unfair as between Members because of their different states of health and——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewisrose——

Mr. Smith: I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewisrose——

Mr. Smith: What I was about to say will take some time, so perhaps I ought to give way to the hon. Member now.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member represents the City of London. We all know that most of the peers who are ennobled come from the City of London and go to the City of London. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has the hon. Member consulted his constituents to see whether they are against this proposal? Perhaps he could develop that point.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for one of the Hams has mentioned the point I was about to make. I soon have good news for him. The attendance requirement is unfair between different parts of the United Kingdom. It imposes a much greater strain, and expense, on those who come from further off. This factor is certain to unbalance the new House. It is bound to make the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peers give up their voting rights earlier on average than the London-based peers. This in turn means that fresh Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peers will be created relatively more rapidly than the English peers. Therefore, the peerage as a whole, voting and nonvoting,

will tend to be greatly unbalanced in favour of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Then we must allow for two other tendencies. The first is that of Scotsmen to leave for England, as they have done through the ages, and which, in this context, may disqualify them as representatives, which will involve their replacement. The second is that of Scotsmen, Welshmen and Northern Irish and, indeed, of all people chosen for regional or national qualities, to put country or region before politics, so that they cease to be the licensed, reliable voters or non-voters they were supposed to be under this Bill.
If we allow for these two tendencies, the higher attendance requirement is likely, in course of time, to unbalance the composition of the new House against the English. What happens if a peer who has been nominated to vote for Scotland but who has been paid to vote Labour is faced with Labour anti-Scottish legislation; or worse, an impossible strain will be placed on those nominated Scotsmen who sit as full time, unpaid "don't-know" cross benchers. Who has met a Scotsman, even unpaid, who was impartial about Scotland? This is a serious point. If a high attendance requirement is imposed, these three forces working through time will in the end mean that, in the House of Lords, the whole of the non-voting part and a large part of the voting section will consist of people from the outlying parts of the island.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Is not this provision also unfair as between the two Houses? No such provision applies in this House, otherwise the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) would find himself in trouble.

Mr. Smith: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says, but I will not say it. The attendance requirement is a degrading infringement of liberty and an insult to the sort of people——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the principle of an attendance record. We are discussing the various stages of an attendance record.

Mr. Smith: That is true, Mr. Gourlay, but the attendance requirements range from the high, suggested by the hon.


Member for Aston-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to the low, suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I am supporting the latter. I am in favour of a low attendance requirement. The sort of people we expect and hope to see in the House of Lords can be depended upon either to turn up—or to give up their voting rights—on the promptings of their conscience. This attendance requirement will lead to subterfuge, which is not good for the House of Lords. It will lead to people turning up, signing on and going away at once; or to people turning up for several days one after another and then gong away for the rest of the Session. I do not think that is good for the House of Lords.
Finally, Mr. Gourlay—and I am sorry to have kept you so long but I feel very strongly indeed about this matter—I feel it is something that is going to change the nature of the other House more than anything else. I cannot give you a better illustration of what I mean—and hon. Members can take this as they please— than to say that this attendance requirement is the one thing in this Bill which would make it absolutely out of the question for myself ever to agree to go there.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan) I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) possesses an individual style that commands the attention of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think it would be very interesting, he having sung the vespers for us, now to attempt over the next few days to sort out the wheat from the chaff. The manner in which the hon. Gentleman holds our attention comes of this peculiar combination, though I must confess that on occasion I feel that there is more chaff than wheat about what he says—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It is this interesting conundum which we need time to reflect upon, and I certainly would not wish to detain the Committee from its studies of his speeches.

I confess to the Committee that I am deeply disappointed at the amount of

progress that has been made. I feel we could have done a lot more than we have done, and that it would have been possible to compress speeches much more. I do not think the Front Bench on this side—and certainly the Front Bench on the other side—have taken up too much time in these debates, and I regret that we have managed to handle only such a small handful of Amendments up to the present time.

However, the Committee has had a long, hard night; it has had a long, hard day. It would be unreasonable to expect hon. Gentlemen to pursue their studies further during the night. Who knows? Maybe next time we will be able to make some progress.

Question put and agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE (INDUSTRIAL DIVERSIFICATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: In October, 1967, the Government, commenting on the Review of Yorkshire and Humberside produced by the Economic Planning Council, said:
There are undoubtedly grounds for disquiet concerning the long-term economic growth of the region and the Government will keep the situation under review.
The Economic Planning Council's reply was very much more to the point, and I wish to quote from paragraph 2. It read:
One of the economic characteristics of the region not referred to in the Government commentary is the substantial decline in employment in certain industries of major importance to the region, and the heavy dependence of some parts of the region on employment in industries in which manpower has declined and can be expected to decline in future, in particular areas of South Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Coalfield. The rate of future decline must be anticipated well in advance.
Unfortunately, instead of the rate of future decline being anticipated well in advance, we have been left waiting for the Hunt Report.
In 1965 unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was running at between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent.


of the national average, which at that time was quite low. In 1966 it was running at between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the national average. In 1967 it was running at between 90 per cent. and 100 per cent. of the national average and in December, 1967, it had reached the national average figure.
In 1968 the unemployment figure for the region never fell below the national average, and in August, 1968, it was 12 per cent. above it. More specifically, in the Yorkshire coalfield in September, 1964, there were 5,800 unemployed, or 2 per cent., in September, 1968, the figure had shot up to 13,500, which was 4·6 per cent., and in February, 1969, these were the percentages in various parts of the coalfield area: Hemsworth, 8·9; Mexborough, 6; Barnsley and District, 4·6; Doncaster and district, 4·6; and Rotherham, 4·4. Those figures compare with a national average of 2·6 per cent. for this month. Fortunately Sheffield has kept a fraction below the national average, but whereas in January and February, 1965, the figure of unemployed was 2,000, in January and February, 1969, it has been running at about 7,000.
There is nothing particularly obscure or perverse about the reason for this state of affairs. It arises largely from the process of industrial reorganisation and modernisation in the two basic industries of coal an dsteel. However, it derives in part also from the reorganisation and improvement in productiviy in the engineering industries. The problems may persist.
A special study by the Economic Planning Council in the light of the Government's fuel White Paper came to the conclusion that
… some 35,000 additional jobs for men will be needed in the coalfield by 1975.
The latest edition of Steel News, published by the British Steel Corporation, forecasts that it is aiming to raise production by 10 million tons by 1975. Manpower in the steel industry—I am referring to the national figure—is likely to go down by 50,000 overall.
There has already been considerable rationalisation in the Sheffield-Rother-ham area. Open hearth furnaces have been replaced by electric arc furnaces

in Steel Peech and Tozer, English Steel Corporation and Samuel Fox with significant redundancies in manpower.
On the working side of the steel industry, we have recently had the formation of Sheffield Rolling Mills Ltd. in a combination of plant from the public and private sectors and this is likely to result in 300 redundancies in the next few months.
The same process has occurred in heavy engineering. We have had the takeovers by Dunford and Elliott of Had-fields, Davy Ashmore of Brightside Foundry, Firth Brown of Jessop Saville and the consequences for Sheffield of the national merger of G.E.C. and A.E.I., have left a modern 10-year-old factory worth £1 million up for sale, with at present no takers.
Also disquieting is the fact that certain of he more modern processes for example, the dynamo and electrical engineering work at the A.E.I. factory and titanium from Jessop Saville have gone from Sheffield to the West Midlands and other parts of the country. The process of modernisation and rationalisaion is not vicious in itself, and we must have competitive efficiency within this country and for our exports. However, it creates problems in regard to the redundancy of manpower and the need for substitute sources of work, and these must be studied and tackled.
I will suggest some ways in which these problems should be tackled. One of the characteristics of the South Yorkshire region is the important part played in its economic activity by the great public Corporations—gas, electricity, the railways, the Post Office, coal, steel and now the Land Commission. I believe that one approach to the solution of the employment problems in this area could arise from a positive drive for diversification by these Corporations of their activities, related, where possible, to local needs. We have seen how the Post Office has gone into the business of banking through the Giro, and computer work through the data processing services it now offers.
I believe that the important local problem of dereliction should be tackled. I should like to quote from a letter from the Clerk of the West Riding County


Council to the Association of Municipal Corporations:
There: is at present a general acceptance that dereliction, especially industrial dereliction, is one of the most important adverse factors which discourage new industry from coming to this region.
There is a strong case for creating a publicly owned company, which would function as a joint subsidiary of the Land Commission and the Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board, for the purpose of reclaiming land made derelict by the industrial processes and extractive industries. The company thus created would function as a National Land Reclamation Agency, dealing with the problem of dereliction, and would progress to major schemes of land reclamation. There is scope also for the Coal Board to use the immensely valuable raw material which is its basic work by moving into the field of the chemical industry and diversifying into the production of chemicals.
There is a strong case for the Government's 85 per cent. grant, which now applies in the development areas, to be given in South Yorkshire because the problem of dereliction has got to be tackled where it exists, and there is a powerful case, in terms of the need for clearing up industrial dereliction in this area, for a more generous grant from the central Government.
There is no reason either why the British Steel Corporation should not diversify its activities from producing slabs, ingots and so on, to the fabrication of steel and thus replace the manpower which will necessarily be lost as the basic processes of producing steel require fewer and fewer men. I am sure that the other great public Corporations could also be encouraged in a practical manner to diversify their activities to provide employment where this is running down.
South Yorkshire needs not only manufacturing industry but public services. We have seen in the last couple of years or so the Giro go to Merseyside, the Mint go to South Wales and important sections of Post Office activities established in Chesterfield and Durham. National Insurance has been administered for a long time from Newcastle. The Gas Board has concentrated its computer administration at Leicester, and I am scandalised to

learn that the Steel Corporation has put its new headquarters in London, at vast waste and expense, when it might profitably have established its central administration in the steel city of Sheffield.
The point that I am concerned to make is that as the public corporations and Government Departments decentralise some of their activities from London and the Home Counties, South Yorkshire should get its share. I hope, for example, that when my right hon. Frend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security sets up his great banks of computers to run the new pension scheme, some of these computers might be located in Doncaster, Sheffield, Rotherham or Barnsley. I hope they will not all be installed across the road in Bridge Street. Thus I have suggested ways in which public corporations and Departments might create new employment opportunities in South Yorkshire.
The Government also have an opportunity and a duty to provide a basic infrastructure for the encouragement of private industry as well.
A group of my right hon. and hon. Friends has produced a valuable report suggesting, among other things, that R.A.F. airfields should be used for commercial purposes. I hope that the Government will consider the creation of an international airport in the West Riding in due course. I hope that the Minister of Transport will reconsider his decision not to improve the South Yorkshire navigation to Rotherham and Tinsley and thus create a water route direct from the industrial centre of Sheffield and Rotherham to the Humber ports.
On roads, we have excellent north-south communications with the Ml, Ml8 and the Al; but unfortunately the road communications to Humberside, to Hull in particular, and west of the Pennines are not satisfactory and urgently require strengthening and improving. To attract new industry, especially consumer industries like food processing and domestic durables, first-class communications are essential, and they are a basic responsibility of the central Government.
Another basic requirement for the diversification of industry in South Yorkshire, as elsewhere, is industrial training-opportunities for men coming out of the old basic industries to retrain for new


jobs. I welcome the developments in this direction which have taken place in Sheffield. I note with satisfaction that there is to be future expansion in Wakefield. I believe that the Government have done a first-rate job concerning industrial training; but I hope that they will not be content with what has been achieved so far. I hope that they will build on it, develop it, and go forward. However, we do not want Government training centres to train people in bricklaying and carpentry. These are excellent biblical trades, with which I have no quarrel, but there is already great unemployment in the building and construction industry. We do not want Government training centres to train bricklayers and carpenters, excellent trades though they are, but to train people in engineering trades, instrumentation, electrical trades, radio and television. Those are the skills that we need.
The people in South Yorkshire are not just sitting down waiting for the Hunt Committee. I am sure that the Minister will have read the policy statement by a number of my colleagues, compiled specifically by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), in which a great many important points are made concerning the provision of new jobs, communications, airfields, roads, waterways and other matters to which I have referred. I believe that this is a valuable statement and I hope that it will be carefully studied by the Minister and his colleagues.
I should like now to refer to the activities and work of what has become known as the 44 Group. This is a consortium of local authorities extending over South Yorkshire and, to some extent, other areas as well, designed to concentrate the thoughts and activities of the local authorities on ways in which new industry can be encouraged to come to South Yorkshire, to survey industrial sites, to examine ways in which they can co-operate together to provide better industrial sites, to tackle the problem of clearing up the environment, and to examine specific local difficulties. The 44 Group has done a valuable job to date. I hope that it will continue its work and that, with a stronger administrative base, go on to further achievements.
We want an assurance from the Government that the needs of South Yorkshire will not be ignored when the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, whatever they may be, come to be worked out in practical detail.

11.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, for the very cogent manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has recounted the difficulties facing the South Yorkshire region. It is a great pity that there were not more hon. Members on these benches to listen to the constructive arguments he raised.
As my hon. Friend said unemployment in some places in the area is high with a present average of 48 per cent. in the Yorkshire coalfield sub-division and higher levels in some of the small employment exchange areas. In the South Yorkshire sub-division, however, which includes the great steel and engineering centre of Sheffield, unemployment is not much above the national average, although this does not apply to Rotherham.
It is important, however, to keep these problems in perspective. Much of the high unemployment is of fairly recent origin. Hon. Members may assume that it is due in the Yorkshire coalfield mainly to the decrease in jobs in the coal industry. But this is only one factor—and not the largest as far as numbers are concerned. In the last year or so the sub-division has been affected more by loss of jobs in the construction industry than in coalmining.
By comparison the unemployment problem in the development areas is widespread and has been persistent over many years. The Government must therefore give priority to them. This is not to say however that we are not concerned about the problems of places like South Yorkshire. We most certainly are. It was because of the Government's concern for such areas that they set up the Hunt Committee to examine the problem of these areas, and to advise whether revised policies were necessary. The Committee received a very considerable volume of evidence about this part of the region—and subsequently visited it and talked to a number of local bodies.
As will be known, my right hon. Friend has recently received the Committee's report. It is now being urgently considered by the Government, so that following publication decisions can be taken on its recommendations without undue delay.
I have seen reports of the proposals which my hon. Friends representing constituencies in the region are putting forward, many of which relate to the South Yorkshire area. They will, of course, be taken into account in our consideration of the Hunt Report.
But although this debate is taking place in the shadow of the Hunt Report, it would be wrong to think that the Government have been sitting down idly waiting for the Report, as is sometimes suggested.
One of the main problems facing the area arises from the reduced number of jobs which are likely to be provided by the coal industry in future years. This produces basically the same sort of problems of adjustment to change as confront other industries and other parts of the country. But the process presents special difficulties in areas such as South Yorkshire which is so heavily dependent on coal for employment for men.
Yorkshire, however, has two important advantages not found in a number of other coalfield areas. First there are substantial industrial centres in the area and secondly it has an excellent geographical position which, with the completion of the motorway network, will make it a focus of routes from the North and South and across the Pennines and to the Humber. These are very real advantages which are not enjoyed by the more remote mining areas of South Wales, Western Northumberland and Durham, and parts of Scotland which are heavily, if not entirely, dependent on coal. Our task is to build up on these advantages. A great deal can be done by foresight and planning ahead. This is an essential part of the job of the regional economic planning machinery and much work has already been done by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council which was set up by the present Government in 1965.
As soon as the Government produced their White Paper on National Fuel Policy late in 1967, and some estimates of

future manpower levels were available, the regional planning organisations got to work urgently to examine the job requirements in the Yorkshire coalmining areas. They not only took changes in the mining industry into account but also considered, as far as possible the likely changes in other industries and the prospective increase in the working population.
Hon. Members have probably seen the Report of the Economic Planning Council, which was published in May of last year. I think they will agree that it provides us with a sound starting point for planning for the introduction of more industry to the area. The Report gives an estimate of the number of jobs which will be needed in the coalfield from 1968 to 1975. This estimate will necessarily be subject to review from time to time, but the essential point is that we have a document which will be of great assistance in considering future industrial development in the coalfield area.
The Economic Planning Council recommends that in addition to the existing large industrial centres in and near the coalfield there should be established a number of focal points around which industry should be developed to provide additional jobs. It has emphasised the need for adequate retraining facilities in the area and for improved roads. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's acknowledgement of what this Government have done in industrial training. They also urge a big effort to reclaim derelict land which might otherwise hamper the necessary industrial development. Good progress is being made in following up this Report.
After discussions between the Departments on the Regional Economic Planning Board and the local planning authorities, the location of a number of focal points in the neighbourhood of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster, South Elmsall, in the centre of the coalfield, and in the Castleford-Normanton area has been agreed.
The planning authorities are giving further consideration to requirements in the Wakefield and Dearne Valley areas. Honourable Gentlemen may have seen the Economic Planning Council's recent Press release about these developments. There is also the important question of


how to get new industry into the areas designated as focal points and to promote expansion in the existing industrial centres in and around the coalfield.
I know that many people, including the Economic Planning Council and some hon. Members, consider that these will not come about unless the Government offer special inducements such as those available in the development areas. But this is one of the questions on which the Hunt Committee is giving their advice.
The Planning Council's Report on employment in the coalfield, to which I have already referred, was submitted to the Committee so that it was aware of the size and nature of this particular problem in preparing their Report. It needs to be emphasised that by beginning to plan early enough we have given ourselves time to consider the best course of action.
So far, as collieries have closed in Yorkshire it has been possible to transfer the great majority of miners to jobs in other collieries. The Planning Council has estimated, however, that some 35,000 additional male jobs would be needed in the coalfield by 1975 assuming no further migration from the area. In the Council's view, the need for new jobs will be at its greatest between 1971 and 1975 when they estimate that 7,000 extra jobs a year will be needed. For the period to 1971 they estimate a much lower rate of only 1,500 extra jobs a year.
I should like to turn now to action which is already being planned, designed to make the proposed focal points more attractive to industrial expansion. The Economic Planning Council has noted the progress which has been made, for example, in improving road communications. The Ml is now complete and so is the M18 linking the Ml and the Al south of Doncaster and Sheffield. More motorways are being built or planned. The M62 Lancashire—Yorkshire motorway will run across the north of the coalfield and will join it both to Hull and to the ports and the industrial areas of Lancashire. Another motorway will be built towards South Humberside, running from Doncaster via Thorne to the Trent just short of Scunthorpe.
The feasibility of improving the road links between Manchester and Sheffield across the Pennines is also being examined. Other improvements on roads in the coalfield are either in the programme or are being prepared. They include a number of by-passes of mining communities, better roads to give access to the new motorways and improvements to roads in the large towns. The greater part of industrial training must be the responsibility of industry and industrial training boards, but Government training centres are playing a small, although increasing, part in the training effort and contribute towards increasing the supply of skilled labour.
In the south Yorkshire area, the centres at Leeds and Sheffield are to be enlarged and a new centre is to be provided in the Wakefield area. When these are complete it will be possible to train 1,400 people a year, compared with 800 at present, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the trades in which training is given in these centres are chosen with close regard to the needs of local industry.
My hon. Friend made an interesting suggestion for a national land reclamation agency. Similar proposals have been put forward earlier by Lord Hayter and Lord Robens. I think we might wait and see what recommendations on this problem may be put forward in the Hunt Committee's Report which is shortly to be published. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be very ready to take my hon. Friend's suggestion into account, together with other similar pro-proposals, when the Hunt Committee's recommendations are considered in detail.
The Government are also now paying up to 50 per cent. of the cost to local authorities of clearing derelict land and there has been a marked increase in the number of schemes being put forward by the local authorities. This year the Ministry of Housing and Local Government expect a substantial increase in the number of schemes approved in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. can appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the problem but the new system of grants has been in operation for under two years—since April, 1967—and I


think we: need to give it more time before trying to assess the results.
As regards industrial distribution policy, the Board of Trade has administered the I.D.C. control very liberally in the region. In the last three years only one small application for an I.D.C. has been refused in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside, whereas approved floor space amounting to more than 22 million square feet in the period 1965–67 was roughly twice as great as in the preceding three years. Thus, only in a very few exceptional cases have the Government made any attempt to limit the expansion of existing firms in the region.
My ton. Friend referred to the possibility of dispersing more Government offices to the area. We naturally have to give first priority to development areas in choosing sites for the dispersal of Government offices, but we also keep the requirements of other regions in mind. It was recently decided, for instance, to locate a large Inland Revenue office, dealing with Schedule E tax work at Shipley, near Bradford.
Another important industry in this part of Yorkshire which is facing reorganisation is steel, but full details of the British Steel Corporation's plans for the rationalisation of that part of the steel

industry under their control are not yet available. The House will, however, know from the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Power, in reply to a question on 22nd January, that it is hoped that normal wastage, retirement and controlled recruitment will provide for a high proportion of the expected rundown of manpower up to the mid-1970's arising from the Corporation's development programme and productivity bargains.
As my right hon. Friend then said, the Corporation have fully in mind the social and regional aspects of all its manpower plans and will undertake full consultations with the unions and local interests on individual proposals involving the loss of job opportunities.
The situation in South Yorkshire to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention in this debate is clearly one to which the Report of the Hunt Committee will be closely relevant.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SECOND READING COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 26th February, 1969

[MRS. LENA JEGER in the Chair]

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS BDLL

[SECOND SITTING]

Question proposed [19th February],
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill ought to be read a Second time.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

10.30 a.m.

Question again proposed.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I should like briefly to join in the general welcome which this Committee has so far given to the Bill, and I should also like to take up one or two points which have been made in the debate. I must, of course, declare an interest because, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), I am myself a Church Commissioner, and although, obviously, that implies no personal financial interest whatever, our positions must be known and understood by our colleagues.
First, there was a suggestion in our discussions last week that the Advisory Board, which by common consent is going to form a very important part of these arrangements, is in some way the creature of the Church Commissioners. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) used the phrase
This would be reported to the Church Commissioners who, under Section 42, would set up an Advisory Board for Redundant Churches …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 706.]
It is important to stress that this is a totally independent Advisor)' Board. It

is, in fact, the appointment of the Archbishops and of the Prime Minister, and it is exceedingly important that its total impartiality from the Church Commissioners should be established if there is to be confidence in it.
The appropriate words, in paragraph 105 of the Report by Lord Bridges, from which this Bill really stems, is that the intention is that the Advisory Board
should be so strongly composed as to carry compelling weight with the Church of England, with the amenity societies and with the Government.
It goes on in paragraph 107,
The establishment of the Advisory Board will provide something which is lacking under the present system; namely, a single body which can give a balanced and authoritative view as to the weight to be attached to historic and architectural considerations, and a focus where these can be discussed.
I want to make that point very clearly, because it was entirely right and understandable and proper that some question should be asked in the Committee as to what the procedures were to be. Of course we do not yet know the appointments which will be made to that Advisory Board, but I am sure that when we do we shall find that those responsible for the appointments have this kind of consideration very much in mind.
The second point which——

Mr. Robert Cooke: Can my hon. Friend enlarge a little on the nature of this Advisory Board? What sort of people are likely to be appointed?


There must be quite a lot known about what is proposed.

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is nothing publicly known about its composition and numbers, partially, I have no doubt, because those involved wanted to be sure that the House of Commons would approve of the arrangements which we are now discussing, but I think it can be said without any doubt whatever—this is really more for the Minister to deal with, because he speaks with all the authority of the Government—that the Report from which this emerges is going to be the guiding line for the setting up of the Board. I have no knowledge of names, but I certainly hope my hon. Friend will find a number of names which will give him confidence, and that the Board will be of the kind I have described.
The second point arises out of a comment made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He used these words when discussing what would happen upon a site being sold:
A very large sum of money indeed would come into the Church Commissioners' hands, and they are precisely the same people who have to decide what happen-, to the church.
He was good enough to add:
I am not suggesting for a moment that they would decide the matter on those motives. What I am saying is that if they did decide to pull it down, they would be in a very difficult position to defend their decision, however good it was, because nowhere else in the country do we allow this to happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 721.]
The point that needs to be stressed is that the moneys which arise from this operation do not go into the general funds of the Commissioners. In a pretty exact sense the Commissioners are trustees of those moneys for the diocese concerned. Indeed, I can say from the Church point of view that there are many Churchmen who are more than critical of any proposal that any of the moneys arising from such a transaction should be used for any purpose other than future Church needs. This was quite a controversial internal matter. I have only to remind the Committee that it is estimated that over the next twenty years the capital requirements for new housing areas, new towns and the like, are between £10 million and £20 million for it to be realised what an immense burden lies ahead, and how controversial

is the application of a substantial portion of that which arises to a fund which will be responsible for the architectural upkeep, and so on, of a building which is demonstrably redundant.
I know that some hon. Gentlemen have questioned whether the Commissioners should have given to the fund a larger proportion of the moneys arising. May I set firmly upon the record that this is not at all a decision of the Commissioners? This is exclusively a decision of the Church Assembly. It was not the Commissioners' decision. It is not within their power to make a decision. This was decided by the Church Assembly, which is responsible for the Pastoral Measure.
I respectfully draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the financial procedures here can be varied by order. The amounts payable, the proportions payable, the ceiling, are all liable to amendment or variation by order. I dare say that, if the House sees fit to give this Bill a Second Reading, we shall learn by experience as the years progress, and orders may indeed be placed before the House.
I deal last with the question of publicity. This was very properly raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), and others. May I respectfully draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is already a procedure for notice on the building in question, when it is declared redundant. I think it is important for me to make it quite plain that, under the Pastoral Measure it is a statutory requirement that on the building there should be a notice of intention to make it redundant. It is very important that a building of the kind we are discussing, or indeed any other, should not be declared redundant in a hole in a corner fashion; that people should not suddenly wake up one morning and find that it has been made redundant, with all the consequences which could flow from demolition.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Is the notice provided when a building is declared redundant similar to the notice which is put up when there is a vacancy


in a parish, an interregnum between two vicars? That is a very obscure and official notice in quite small print on the door of the church. One would wish for a notice to be put up well outside the church itself, perhaps at the entrance to the graveyard, which could be seen by passers-by who do not actually darken the door of the church themselves.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe I am correct in saying that the minimum requirement is a notice of a kind analogous to that which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. But let me say very clearly that I am quite certain—I have taken some trouble to make sure—that there is no disposition whatever to declare a church redundant in a hole in a corner fashion. If it will assist, I am quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I, between now and the Committee stage, will gladly hold consultations under the general guidance of the Minister whose Bill this is, to see that that aspect of the matter can be further strengthened to meet the needs of the Committee. There is no disposition whatever to do this other than perfectly frankly.

Mr. Robert Cooke: What steps are going to be taken by the Church to see that a building does not gradually run down structurally and otherwise, and then fall into the redundant category? What steps are to be taken to stop the steady decay of the fabric before it comes under the protection of this Bill, and what steps are to be taken to protect a building declared redundant, which is not used, which is meant to be locked up against vandals, and which is, in fact, the victim of vandalism and thus becomes irreparable?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Taking the first point, the building state of the church is not the primary consideration. I can think of examples of very substantial sums of money, some would say excessively large sums of money, being made available for buildings which it is felt—at any rate by those who use them, and they have every right to be heard in such a matter—would have a continuing use. Indeed, if anything the emphasis is the other way. Some feel that there is almost too much money being spent on equipment and buildings. There is, of course, a continuing duty on those using a church

to maintain it to the very best of their ability. But so far as I know there is no statutory requirement—certainly there is not in this Bill—to that effect, and that is where the matter should rest.
On the second point, I concede that that can be a very difficult matter. Again, I am sure that those of us concerned would consult to see whether some step could be taken, but I do not see it as a matter for legislation. Regrettably, we all know how extraordinarily difficult it can be in many fields, in housing, for example, to protect even totally newly built buildings, if there is deliberate vandalism. But once an order has been made, very great care has frequently been taken with specific items in a church which are of very great interest. I have with me a list of a number of such features which, most painstakingly, have been moved to museums or to other churches where they have a very great use, and certainly that is the intention behind the Bill.
There is no intention whatever to declare redundancy in a hole in the corner fashion. I hope that what I have said may be of some assistance to those who have had reservations. The Committee stage is yet to come. I join in the general words of welcome, and appreciation of the way in which the Minister explained this matter at our last Sitting.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I welcome this Measure as necessary and urgent, in view of the problems faced by the Churches, the Government, and authorities in general. The Bill underlines the fact that the Church has a continuing responsibility for redundant churches of historic and architectural interest. It also rightly accepts that the community at large has a responsibility for the maintenance of these churches as part of our heritage.
From time to time changes are bound to occur because of changing industrial patterns, and with people moving from one area to another, so that many fine buildings may be left in the centres of cities and towns in which the main population no longer resides. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) spoke at our last sitting about the need for authorities continually to have in mind the changing pattern of


residential and other developments to ensure that churches are situated where people most need them. A special plea must go out to congregations in general to consider the needs of other areas and to recognise, as early as possible, that some of the churches which they treasure are taking resources in manpower, money and materials which might better be used elsewhere. This will be a continuing liability. As a member of the Archbishop's Commission which in recent years looked at the needs of London and the South-East I can tell the Committee that the Commission recognised the continuing pattern of development, and the Church is anxious to face up to the needs of the times.
Another aspect of Church affairs is that, with Anglican and Methodist unity being brought about, the possibility may arise that some churches which may be considered redundant might be used by other denominations, or for joint purposes, in the new situation which the Church will face.
I was interested in the points which were made both by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and also by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) about the need to safeguard fittings and furniture in churches. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has now given some assurances in that respect.
Paragraph 120 of the Archbishops' Report on Redundant Churches deals with the vesting of redundant churches during the second stage of deliberations. The paragraph says:
During the second stage, or interim period between a declaration of redundancy and the scheme proposing a new use, or demolition, we consider that the church should vest in the Diocesan Board of Finance on a caretaker basis, with particular reference to the care of furniture and monuments. We have heard in evidence of cases where the parochial authorities have not been able to save closed churches from vandalism or to ensure that furnishings are properly looked after. We therefore consider it important that some responsible body, outside the parish but not too remote, should act as caretaker of redundant churches until such time as their future has been decided.
It is reassuring to know that that is in the mind of the Commission. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us

that they will be taken care of by some responsible body, if not by the Ministry, at this stage. It is important to care for these churches, and if it is decided that there is no future use for them the real point of keeping them should not be lost.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I take it that my hon. Friend means during the waiting period.

Mr. Bishop: Yes, during the second stage working period when a decision has to be made whether they are redundant or can be used for church or other purposes.
Another important point which was raised at our last Sitting is that of public notification of the possibility of a church's becoming redundant. It is most important that the public are informed of this possibility. Paragraphs 110 to 114 and paragraph 118 of the Report stress the point that there should be due publicity at various stages of the procedure. I should like the Minister to assure us that it will still be possible, if necessary, to appeal to the Privy Council, because it was queried in the Archbishops' Report.
The hon. Member for Wokingham and I have a joint interest in this matter as Church Commissioners, and I am grateful for his assurances. He mentioned the rôle of the Church Commissioners in this matter and their responsibility, and he said that any money which accrues is held in trust. The Church Commissioners exercise funds in trust for many purposes and for many authorities. It involves the question of whether they have the authority to spend money in the ways in which some people feel it ought to be spent.
I hope that the Minister will be able to comment upon the desirability of his Ministry caring for these buildings as compared with the Ministry of Public Building and Works which has had long experience for many years in the care of such buildings. That kind of experience would be most useful in the responsibility for and care of redundant churches. One hopes that in future the use made of church buildings will eliminate the possibility of their becoming redundant. I am sure that the Church authorities would wish us to say that we value the Ministry's co-operation in the joint trusteeship of


these buildings as and when they get to the situation of needing public care and attention.

10.55 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this Bill. It is important to preserve churches of great beauty and historic value since they are part of our heritage. Many churches have been passed clown to us by our forefathers and they faced tremendous difficulties in preserving and looking after them. It is our duty to hand over these churches to future generations, and it is vital that we should do so. Money was spent in days gone by, and in much harder times than obtain today, in order to preserve churches, and long may this continue.
I should like to sound a note of warning. We must not be too sentimental about this matter. Some churches could be removed with benefit to all concerned, and the money derived from the sale of sites, and so on, could be used for other purposes. One has to be practical and flexible in outlook. Although we have this priceless heritage, we must not be sentimental about it. Important though God's house is, the church of God is not just a building, not just a framework. Surely the church must move to areas where the real need is, that is to say, in the new housing estates and so on. The need can be met by the sale of some of our sites and money thereby provided for new churches to be built so that the Church of God is active and working. This is most important.
In my own county of Devon is the little village where I live, Luffincott, a tiny place with twelve people in it, eight of them Methodists. It is virtually impossible for the four Anglicans to keep the tiny little church going at Luffincott, yet we struggle to do so. I think that in that particular case we are wrong. It is not a very beautiful church, not a building that I should want to pass as a heritage to my own children. We must be practical and get our priorities right.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I presume that the tiny parish of four people is part of a combined benefice and that there is a larger church flourishing nearby?

Mr. Mills: That is correct. Yet in many cases we struggle to maintain a church which is not necessary at all.

There is a crying need in other areas and the money for which we are struggling, to preserve our churches, could be used to the benefit of other people. I believe that the Church should be careful about the way in which it spends its money in preserving churches and church ornaments, and so on, at great cost when there is a crying need in other areas. Many thousands of pounds may be spent on an organ, although one knows of the desperate needs both in housing estates and in areas abroad.
I welcome the use of redundant churches for other purposes in a wide range, though there must be a limit. Their use for youth clubs, schools and temporary classes, fits in with the pattern of what the Church of God should be doing, but there is a limit. Some ideas which have been put forward are not suitable. In the South-West there are non-conformist churches which have been used for the storage of hay, and even to house cattle. In fact I have seen runs put down for pigs to go in and out of them. I do not say that this should happen in the Anglican Church for there is a limit to the way in which churches should be used.
I spoke the other day to the Editor of the Farmer and Stockbreeder about redundant churches, and he told me an interesting story about Russia in which he had recently travelled. Churches in Russia have become redundant on a large scale, to say the least, and it was found that they made excellent grain silos. Such use is, of course, going too wide. Churches are consecrated buildings hallowed with the prayers of generations of people, and it is important to be careful about their use.

Mr. Driberg: The Saxon church in my own parish in Essex was for many centuries used as a barn. It is a fact, perhaps a curious fact, that the Soviet Government have been extremely scrupulous, not out of respect for the Christian religion, perhaps, in preserving churches of great antiquity and beauty and make far more generous grants than any British Government have ever been able to do.

Mr. Mills: I am grateful for that intervention; it shows my ignorance on this subject as far as Russia is concerned. I was only quoting that in Russia I understand that churches are being used


for grain silos. I do not believe this should be, but there are youth clubs and all sorts of activities which fit in with what the Church is trying to do.
On the need for good publicity when one is going to declare a church redundant, I agree with my hon. Friends. It is absolutely vital that there should be good publicity. This might awaken the interest of local people when they see a big sign outside their church saying it is to become redundant. I believe this is most important. A two-penny-halfpenny piece of paper stuck on a door is of no use whatever. What is needed is a big sign outside: "This church is going to become redundant." People would start to care again. In my experience, particularly in the South-West, when there have been problems regarding re-roofing a church, one finds the parish or village responds in a remarkable way. This is their church and even though they do not attend that church—and I wish they did—Sunday by Sunday, seeing it become redundant revives their interest. I would like to see good publicity and a good notice showing exactly what is going to happen.
It is extremely important that declaring a church redundant is a pastoral decision. The people in the parish are vitally concerned with the closure of their church and its becoming redundant. In other words, they should have a very real part in advising the Advisory Board. I hope that no decisions will be taken without looking into the matter very carefully from a pastoral angle, and I hope, secondly, that the Advisory Board allows the people who live in the parish to state their views very clearly. It will not only have an effect in the parish; it will have a much wider effect farther afield in the diocese. I hope we can have that assurance, that the Advisory Board will take very careful note of what the local people are saying and that it will be a pastoral decision.

11.4 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I would begin by making a half apology——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member can speak twice only with the leave of the Committee.

Mr. Skeffington: If I may, with the leave of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is so long since we met and so much has happened I overlooked that.
I would begin by offering a half apology to Members that they have had to come back to the Committee. One realises that everyone has been under considerable pressure, particularly in the last 24 hours, but, nevertheless, it would have been wrong to have tried to rush this stage of the Bill, particularly when there were so many very interesting speeches made, some by Members who have great devotional concern in the Anglican community and others who have great knowledge of and feeling about the historical and architectural merits, especially of the older churches. These many speeches and excellent contributions did require as competent and full an answer as I am able to give.
Running through a number of the speeches on the last occasion was a feeling that perhaps the protection afforded by this Measure, based upon the Pastoral Measure, in relation to old buildings is not enough. One's first answer might be, though I do not want to take refuge in this, that if the protection existing was not sufficient that was really a matter that ought to have been looked at when the Pastoral Measure was before the House. The House has its own procedure for dealing with these matters. There is the Ecclesiastical Committee, which makes its report, and there are so many Members knowledgeable in this field who no doubt would have made their contribution. I would hope to reassure everyone, as far as I can within my authority, that some of the fears are unnecessary. The procedure outlined in the Pastoral Measure, which does have the effect of a Statute, is really quite considerable.
I was very grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who acted in some respects as Mr. Lloyd George once said Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, acted—as "an air raid shelter for Mr. Neville Chamberlain". The hon. Member for


Wokingham has taken unto himself some targets.
If one looks at the Pastoral Measure which is being applied by Clause 2 one will realise there is a fair degree of protection at a number of points which will, I hope, go some way to diminish the fears which have been expressed.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham has said, and other Members have referred to this, there must be a diocesan committee to consider any proposed pastoral reorganisation, both in relation to the administration generally and also in relation to the question of the uses of the church. When any scheme of rearrangement is being considered the diocesan committee has to consult interested parties which are specified in the Pastoral Measure and include the local standing authority, so that it is aware of any proposals in the very earliest days before there is any scheme, and also the Council for the Care of Churches, which is an old-established body having a statutory force in the Church of England going back to 1938. That body is to be consulted because it has a great wealth of knowledge both about architectural merits and historical interest, and the information from that body has to be considered by the Committee drawing up any schemes.
Having reached that stage, a scheme is prepared which has to be submitted to the bishop who may accept it or not. He may send it back; he may feel it is inadequate, although it will have been prepared by those specially chosen in the diocese for their knowledge, care and concern. At that stage, the bishop, if he approves the draft proposals—and they are only draft proposals at that stage—has to send them to the Church Commissioners. That is the first round in the preparation of the scheme: the interested parties being consulted and able to make their views known to the reorganisation committee in the diocese; the bishop having a say and having to be satisfied before he accepts the draft scheme. It then goes to the Church Commissioners who have, in the second round as it were, to carry out their own procedures. These include consulting the Advisory Board, which we have already referred to, particularly where the proposals involve either demolition or structural alterations.
If the Advisory Board certifies that the church is not of architectural or historical importance the pastoral scheme can provide for the demolition of the building. That is a simple case. If the Board has a different view, then, before anything further can be done, there is the waiting period of a year, in which every effort must be made to find an alternative use.
I must say something about that because my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) raised points about future use. The Commissioners, having received this advice from the Advisory Board, have to serve notice of the draft scheme on all the interested parties—again the local planning authority is one—and, if it provides for a declaration of redundancy, on the Advisory Board. There also has to be a notice published in the local Press. There is then this opportunity for representations to be made. If the Commissioners decide to proceed with the scheme they must submit it to the bishop for his consent. So it goes back to the bishop again, and he sees the final scheme the Church Commissioners are presenting to him. If the bishop then consents, the scheme is sealed and submitted to the Queen in Council for confirmation. The scheme must again be advertised and there is, at this stage, a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
Criticism of this might be, "Whenever is the church going to be pulled down?". It is a satisfactory scheme from the point of view that there are at least two stages where consultations can take place; there is a notice in the Press; there is the final appeal to the Privy Council itself, where appeals will be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when there are disputes.
Ever since the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, Church buildings in ecclesiastical use have been excluded from what nowadays we would call "planning control". This was a deliberate decision. It was criticised at the time along the lines of some of the criticisms we have heard today. There have been unfortunate experiences, to which I referred, at the turn of the century. At that time Archbishop Davidson, defending the proposal, undertook that there should be an inquiry to consider, before they reached the stage


we are considering today, how better churches might be safeguarded. There was set up under Sir Lewis Dibdin, a committee of inquiry which advocated, in the end, that there should be a diocesan advisory committee in each diocese to advise if requested on these architectural and artistic matters. This Measure received confirmation by the appropriate body in the Established Church in 1938. So there was this very considerable step taken even by the Church itself, apart from its normal care and concern, as a result of the exclusion of buildings from the 1913 Act.
To take up the story again at the point we have reached, where a scheme is being put forward which declares a redundancy, two new protections operate which may not have been fully understood in our discussion last week. It may not be generally known that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government classifies ecclesiastical buildings and grades them, as it does other historic buildings. It has no right so long as the buildings remain in ecclesiastical use, but once they come out of ecclesiastical use, and once there is a scheme and a waiting period, because no longer is the building being used for ecclesiastical purposes, the protection of the Planning Acts applies and, of course, during the waiting period the Planning Acts are fully operative. Once a scheme is confirmed, then, as Clause 2 provides, this protection can no longer operate. Clearly one cannot protect a building and have a right to pull it down at the same time.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, he probably already knows this, but if he looks at Section 49 of the Pastoral Measure he will see that subsection (2) says:
During the period between the taking effect of a declaration of redundancy and the coming into operation of a redundancy scheme with respect to the redundant property—

(a) the Diocesan Board of Finance shall be responsible for the care and maintainance of the redundant building, so far as is reasonable in all the circumstances, and the safe keeping of its contents, whether in the building or elsewhere, and shall insure the said building and contents;
(b) the Diocesan Redundant Churches Uses Committee or, as the case may be, the Commissioners shall make every endeavour to find a suitable use for the redundant building;

(c) while incurring no financial obligation, the incumbent and churchwardens of the parish in which the redundant building is situated shall give the Diocesan Board of Finance every assistance in providing for reasonable supervision of the building against damage."


These are three additional protections which are part of the Pastoral Measure itself. This is perhaps the period when the church is best protected in the whole of its history, so if that is considered, I do hope it will allay some of the fears which have been expressed.
Nothing in this Measure or in the Pastoral Measure will deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, when he referred to the unfortunate incident at Salisbury Cathedral, because this was when the building was fully in the care of the Church authorities and nothing can be done in such a case. No doubt, distinguished members of the Church will use their influence as far as they can, although sometimes these are matters of taste rather than of law, but at any rate I hope they will see that such a difficulty does not arise.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the Minister leaves that point, some of us have expressed fears at what happened at Salisbury and in other cases but we would feel happier if the Minister and the Department took an interest in the fate of these fine fittings after they have been removed. No doubt it is right that the Church should be able to do what it likes with its own possessions, but what we object to is that these things should be thrown into a scrapyard and then broken up by dealers and distributed to unsuitable places. We would like to be assured that the Ministry will take an interest in the preservation of these articles and even try to find alternative uses for them in other buildings.

Mr. Skeffington: Where the Ministry takes over a building, which would normally not be a Church of England building, I am sure the Minister will use his good offices to see that the contents are safeguarded and, if they are not to continue in use, that some other use is provided for them. I assure the Committee that in so far as we can use our good offices, we will do so. We have no statutory powers in this matter, but much can be done if one tries to bring it to the notice of the interested bodies.
A question was asked at our last Sitting, I think by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) as to what will be the policy of the Ministry in relation to buildings which are taken over, because the Minister has not the experience of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The only reason why power is taken in this Measure to take over an exceptional church or religious building is that there is no other body able to do so. It would not be the normal policy of the Ministry to hold a building for its own use. The Ministry would want, as quickly as possible, to find an alternative use for it. The building could, for example, be passed to the National Trust or to a local authority, with satisfactory safeguards about the future, or indeed to any body which is capable of preserving the building.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The Minister mentioned the National Trust. He will be aware that the National Trust has clearly laid it down in the Benson Report that in future it will accept no building which is not fully endowed as to its maintenance. So do we take it that it would be so endowed?

Mr. Skeffington: I merely instanced the National Trust as the kind of body which, if it wanted the building, and if there were sufficient funds available, could take over the building. It is not intended that the Ministry should normally hold and manage these buildings.

Mr. Driberg: There is one qualification to what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has just said. When the National Trust applies for grants through the Historic Buildings Council it normally gets a 100 per cent. grant for repairs and major maintenance, and an endowment in advance might not have to be of such proportions as it would be for some other buildings.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Gentleman has been most kind in giving way, but I am slightly concerned at what he is saying about custodianship. It is perfectly normal for the Ministry of Public Building and Works to care for fine old buildings and I believe there will be cases where this is the only really satisfactory solution.

Mr. Skeflingfon: Perhaps I may say that obviously the Ministry will not part

with a building till its future is assured. It can, of course, make arrangements with another Department. One thinks of some buildings which would be admirable for local museums, or something of that kind. I wanted to remove the impression that there would be a duplicate department holding these buildings and managing them, in the same way as the Ministry of Public Building and Works does at the moment. The Ministry does not seek to build up an empire of such buildings in rivalry with the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking, in his interesting speech, raised the question of future uses. I will say on that two things which I hope will be reassuring. First, when the Ministry receives a building—and this, of course, will be a voluntary transaction because there will be buildings for which provision is. not made in Clauses 1 and 2 through the Redundant Churches Fund—the trustees can make what conditions they like about its future use. It is entirely a matter for them, and it is a matter for agreement. If the trustees put in conditions so difficult that the Ministry might be left "holding the baby" for a long period, because the conditions were unreasonable, this would be unfortunate, but if there were strong feelings as to future use the trustees could make their wishes known and incorporate them in an agreement. Secondly, changes of use, if substantial, would require normal planning permission. At the moment churches come under Class XIII of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1963, and if the building were to be used for similar purposes, such as religious meetings, no change of use would be involved. But suppose it were suggested that the building should be used as a museum, or for some other purpose, then it would fall to be decided in the normal way by a planning application, with the usual provision for appeal, and so on. So it would be impossible for a bingo hall suddenly to be established without its going through the whole of the planning procedure. I realise that the planning procedure is not absolutely foolproof but it is the best we have devised so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking, and the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) raised a question about the figures.


These were from the Report of the Archbishops' Commission, and as they are the best figures we have, we shall have to work on them for the present.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) raised the question of whether or not a Statute could amend a Pastoral Measure. It can; and indeed the most recent example was the Criminal Law Act, 1967, which removed from the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, 1963, certain references to felony and misdemeanour which the Act was rendering obsolete. Certainly Parliament can do this. What happened was that the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, conferred upon the Established Church the right to pass certain Measures with a Parliamentary procedure through a Committee of the House. For all practical purposes these Measures have the effect of law, but like any other law they can be modified, extended, or altered by the wishes of Parliament. So, authority is quite clear on that point and there is nothing in this Bill which is ultra vires.
I again thank all the hon. Members who have taken part for the contributions they have made. It has been a great help to me, and I hope this Measure will now have its Second Reading.

Mr. Worsley: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps deliberately, has not addressed himself to the point of financial assistance for churches in use. I am not seeking to press the hon. Gentleman very hard on this but I hope he can say whether the Historic Buildings Council at present has powers to help a church which is in use, without any further legislation.

Mr. Skeffington: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will put his question again?

Mr. Worsley: This is a question which I asked in my speech a week ago. The point I was seeking to make is that it really is illogical for the State only to help churches which are already out of use; in due course we shall have to help churches which are still in use. I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that the Historic Buildings Council was already in existence, and helps other historic buildings, and I wanted to know whether this Council could, under its present powers,

help churches which are in use, realising perfectly clearly that it is decided that it is policy not to do so. Does the legal framework have to be changed in order that the Historic Buildings Council may help churches in use?

Mr. Skeffington: It has to reach the point where the building is no longer being used for ecclesiastical purposes. Till then it is not possible under the 1913 Act. When that point is reached the Council could certainly legally make a contribution. Once the building comes out of ecclesiastical control the constitution will allow of a contribution to be made.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I feel I must press the Minister further because this is a very important point. Will he confirm that under this Bill there is nothing that will enable funds to be provided for the maintenance of a building which, while still in use, is running down structurally and might continue to run down structurally for many years? Will he confirm that there is nothing in the Act which set up the Historic Buildings Council which enables it to provide help for a building which is still in use but running down structurally, perhaps over many years?

Mr. Skeffington: That is quite correct. At the present time there is nothing which can be done to assist in that way. To do so would mean breaching the arrangement that has existed between the Church and the State. If it is felt that this is a matter which should be looked at, no doubt the appropriate bodies will see that it is.

Mr. Driberg: There is one rather curious point of which my hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware. As a member of the Historic Buildings Council I know that we quite often recommend—and we can only recommend—to the Minister that grants should be made to buildings which are in ecclesiastical use, not churches themselves but deaneries, such as the Deanery of Ripon, parsonage houses and various other such buildings still in ecclesiastical use.

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, I should have spoken of buildings being used for worship. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill ought to be read a Second time

Mr. James Allason: May I thank you, Mrs. Jeger, very much from this side of the Committee for presiding so ably over our proceedings.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Chairman.)
Mills, Mr.Peter


Allason, Mr.
More, Mr.


Bishop, Mr.
Pearson, Sir Frank


Cooke, Mr.
Skeffington, Mr.


Robert Driberg, Mr.
Thornton, Mr.


English, Mr.
van Straubenzee, Mr.


Harper, Mr.
Watkins, Mr.David


Jackson, Mr.Peter M.
Worsley, Mr.

Mr. Skeffington: I gladly second that; indeed it should have come from me, but we are all a little out of gear this morning. I do not think we have ever had a better Chairman and I would like to add my thanks to those already expressed.

Committee rose at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.